Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Smallholdings

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give consideration to amending the regulations which at present provide only for a husband to be the tenant of full-time smallholdings, so as to allow the wife to take over the tenancy at his decease.

The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale): I have already amended the original Regulations, and the widow of a deceased smallholder may now be given preference as the new tenant.

Mr. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am very grateful to him for the new provisions which he has introduced, because undue hardship has been caused by the operation of the old regulations?

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many authorities, in response to his circular letter of 1952, have written to him for approval to carry on with part-time holdings on land of good quality which were a part of their social structure and sought after by farm workers; to which of the authorities he has given his consent; and to which he has given a refusal.

Sir T. Dugdale: Four authorities have written asking my agreement to the retention of particular part-time holdings.

I have agreed to all these proposals, in one case provisionally.

Mr. Slater: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many of the schemes were in respect of Durham County and the amount of money involved?

Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir, I cannot give particulars today. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question. Durham was not one of the counties which asked for agreement.

Mr. Bartley: In view of the very large waiting lists of applicants for small-holdings in Durham County, can something extraordinary be done to acquire land to satisfy the demand?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am watching the position all the time. That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Mr. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent the creation of new smallholdings has taken place since March 1952; what extensions have been carried out to existing holdings from March, 1952, to March, 1953; how many schemes costing more than £250 for improvements have been submitted to him for his approval; what was the amount of money involved; and what expenditure he has sanctioned.

Sir T. Dugdale: I shall not know exactly how many smallholdings were created or increased in size during the year 1952–53 until I have received reports from authorities about the progress of their smallholdings schemes during that period. In the year, however, I approved proposals for the creation of 42 new smallholdings and for the addition of land to 35 existing holdings. Two hundred and thirty-nine schemes for improvements costing more than £250 were submitted for my approval during the year at a total estimated cost of £440,000. I have approved 212 of these schemes, which are estimated to cost £350,000.

Mr. Slater: Can the Minister state how many, if any, applications were made from Durham County for improvements and extensions costing more than £250?

Sir T. Dugdale: Not without notice.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of the rate at which we are losing men from the land and the extent to which this might


prove to be a method of holding them, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the figures are ludicrously small? Will he try to get more money for the purpose?

Sir T. Dugdale: Considering all the factors involved, progress is good. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, where we get a good smallholdings estate, it is the most satisfactory way to keep the best type of young man on the land.

Mr. Bartley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the improvements referred to by my hon. Friend include additional equipment such as piggeries and poultry houses? Is he aware that some tenants of holdings, especially in Durham, have the utmost difficulty in getting favourable consideration given to applications for such equipment?

Sir T. Dugdale: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "Yes, Sir." As to the second part, I must ask the hon. Member to put down a specific Question about Durham County.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Compensation)

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount paid in 1952 for compensation for stock slaughtered because of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in England.

Sir T. Dugdale: One million, seven hundred and twenty-one thousand, eight hundred and seventy-one pounds.

Sir L. Ropner: Can my right hon. Friend say how that compares with the previous year?

Sir T. Dugdale: The figure for 1952 was very high indeed. I have given the House the English figure for 1952. The figure for 1951 was £376,874. Up to 3rd July this year the figure is £57,000.

Mr. Brown: Could the Minister say whether the committee of inquiry is nearing the end of its labours, as it is getting rather belated?

Sir T. Dugdale: It has almost finished taking evidence and will be visiting the Argentine, Norway and Sweden very shortly. Its report is expected to be ready by the end of the year.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much we are spending on research into foot-and-mouth disease?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is a different question altogether.

Adventurers Fen, Burwell

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture why he proposes to hand back to the National Trust land in Adventurers Fen, in Burwell and Swaffham, in view of their expressed intention to flood it; how much public money has been spent by the agricultural executive committee; and if he will make a statement on the particulars which have been sent to him.

Sir T. Dugdale: Adventurers Fen was derequisitioned last year, in accordance with the recommendations in Section VII of the report of the Agricultural Land Commission. This land formed part of a larger area of requisitioned land at Swaffham Prior and Burwell Fens and it is not possible to allocate expenditure by the County Agricultural Executive Committee between different parts of the total area. I am satisfied, however, that the crops obtained during the period of requisition justified the cost.

Sir W. Smithers: How does the Minister justify, under Section 84, (1, a and b) of the Agriculture Act, 1947, making derelict good agricultural land by flooding?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think the hon. Member has a Question on that Section later on, but as far as this land is concerned it is curious that he should object to my returning to the National Trust land which was their property previously.

Mr. G. Brown: But would it not be better to use the provisions of the Act to acquire this land and keep it in food production.

Mr. Bullard: Can my right hon. Friend say how much land is involved in this proposal to re-flood land? While we want to keep as much land in the Fens as possible in cultivation, will he also bear in mind the naturalist side of this problem, because the research work done at Wicken and Burwell is enormously important?

Sir T. Dugdale: The National Trust land covers about 280 acres and only 120 acres of the poorest and wettest land of that area will be flooded.

Veterinary Surgeons

Commander Scott-Miller: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of veterinary officers and veterinary assistants at present employed by his Department; and how these figures compare with those of the last three years.

Sir T. Dugdale: As the comparison with the last three years involves a table

—
Veterinary officers (field staff)
Veterinary officers (employed on research or veterinary investigation work)
Temporary veterinary inspectors
Local veterinary inspectors


1st July, 1953
…
369
88
45
1,810


1st July, 1952
…
360
78
67
1,695


1st July, 1951
…
342
73
6
1,576


1st July, 1950
…
330
67
3
1,465


NOTE:


(i) Temporary Veterinary Inspectors are employed on foot-and-mouth, fowl pest and tuberculin testing duties on a daily fee-paid basis.


(ii) Local Veterinary Inspectors are veterinary surgeons in private practice who are employed on a fee basis to carry out work on behalf of the Ministry.

Commander Scott-Miller: asked the Minister of Agriculture the present number of veterinary surgeons and practitioners available to the agricultural industry; and how these figures compare with those of the last three years.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am informed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons that there are 5,485 names on the register of Veterinary Surgeons. Of these, about 2,700 are in private veterinary practice in Great Britain, but not all are likely to be engaged exclusively on agricultural work. This compares with a figure of about 2,500 in 1950.
In addition there are about 300 veterinary practitioners in a supplementary register maintained by the Royal College. The number has not altered significantly over the past three years. About 200 are in private practice, but some of these may be engaged on work outside agriculture.

Commander Scott-Miller: In view of the rapidly expanding agricultural industry

of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Commander Scott-Miller: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, might I ask him whether he is satisfied that he can meet the ever-increasing demand from the agricultural industry for veterinary services?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, I think that the position is satisfactory and that we can meet the demands as they arise.

Following is the information:

and the new demands for veterinary surgeons and practitioners arising all the time, could my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with the general rate of increase of members of the veterinary service?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. As I said in answer to a previous Question, I keep this point very much under review the whole time. I am satisfied that the position is satisfactory. There are times when we get such a big increase of work in the eradication of tuberculosis that in certain areas we may be temporarily short, but the general position is satisfactory.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the Minister satisfied that the number of students in the various agricultural colleges and universities is sufficient to meet the demand of an extended agricultural industry in the future?

Sir T. Dugdale: I have never had any contrary advice tendered to me.

Farm Speculation (Tenant Protection)

Lieut.-Commander Baldock: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will introduce legislation to protect agricultural tenants against harassing actions by companies who attempt to obtain vacant possession of farms that they have bought with the object of resale at a profit, since this kind of action can only result in a reduction in the country's food supplies.

Sir T. Dugdale: I shall certainly be prepared to consider this the next time there is legislation to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948.

Lieut.-Commander Baldock: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask if his attention has been drawn to a particularly bad case, that of Mr. Clarke, of Theddingworth, who has been the victim of litigation, obstruction and of being spied on through field glasses?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, I have had my attention drawn to this particular case and I am watching developments.

Boundary Adjustments

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture why he effects boundary adjustments of agricultural land on the recommendation of the Land Commission under Section 84 (1) (a) and (b) of the 1947 Act when Section 87 provides for boundary adjustments.

Sir T. Dugdale: Section 84 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, enables me, after inquiry by the Agricultural Land Commission, to acquire agricultural land and to provide and maintain the fixed equipment that may be necessary to ensure full and efficient agricultural production. Any boundary adjustments would be incidental to this main purpose. This Section, therefore, enables me to deal with cases where mere boundary adjustments, such as might be provided by a scheme under Section 87 of the same Act, would provide no solution.

Sir W. Smithers: May we take it that the Minister uses whatever Section suits him best to avoid an appeal?

Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir, I use whatever Section is most appropriate in the particular circumstances.

Swedish Landrace Pigs

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange for adequate representation of the British Landrace Pig Society on the purchasing commission which is to carry out the import of Landrace pigs from Sweden.

Sir T. Dugdale: The purchasing commission appointed by the National Pig Breeders' Association includes a representative nominated by the Council of the British Landrace Society.

Mr. Brown: Does the Minister not think it rather queer that the National Pig Breeders' Association, which has been opposing this importation all along, and did so even in its statement accepting the consignment, should be used to do it? Secondly, was not the British Landrace Pig Society asked not to appoint a member of the purchasing commission but to arrange for some one to go along in an advisory capacity?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think the Landrace Society have got the position wrong. As I have stated in my answer, the position is that their representative is a member of the purchasing commission, together with three other members from N.P.B.A. In regard to the first part of the supplementary question, there is bound to be difficulty in dealing with this problem, but by and large I consider that the National Pig Breeders' Association are responsible, in the main, for the breeding of pigs in this country. At the end of the day—although I expect criticism from all quarters whatever method is adopted—this is the best way to get the best results in the interests of pig breeders as a whole.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Can my right hon. Friend explain how these pigs are to be sold, and to whom, when they have been imported?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is another question, but I will say at once they are to be sold by public auction under the auspices of the National Pig Breeders' Association.

Mr. Brown: In view of the clear difference between the views of the Landrace Society and of the Minister, would he be willing to see the various parties before importation and so perhaps remove the difficulties before rather than afterwards?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, I am prepared to see any body at any time, but the commission leaves this country today to go to Sweden to go into the whole question.

Sir R. Boothby: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that some of these pigs come to Aberdeen, and does he not think it a very good thing that they are being imported into this country?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is a different question.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied that the Danish Landrace pig which is to be imported under licence, produces better bacon than any of the English breeds.

Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir. But I think it right to permit a limited importation, which will be of Swedish Landrace pigs, so that the merits of this breed as regards quality and cost of production can be tested under our conditions.

Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend not aware that British agriculture has been recognised as the stud farm of the world? Surely he is not suggesting that our breeds of pigs are inferior to those in Scandinavia.

Sir R. Boothby: Certainly he is.

Sir T. Dugdale: I said at the beginning, "No, Sir." This breed of pigs must have a fair chance of developing.

Armed Forces (Harvest Leave)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many agricultural executive committees have made representations to him regarding harvest leave for members of the Armed Forces.

Sir T. Dugdale: None, Sir.

Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that agricultural leave will be granted to enable help to be given with the harvest where it will be badly needed?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is a matter directly between the individual concerned and the Service Department.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, in the interests of

his own Department, that the matter is being properly conducted?

Sir T. Dugdale: I have had no application from any county committees on this point.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does the Minister believe that in an important matter such as this he should leave the final decision to those in charge in the Forces?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am answering the Question on the Order Paper, the answer to which is, "None, Sir." I am satisfied from the general point of view that the harvest will be brought in.

Colorado Beetle

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the discovery on the Continent of a new variety of Colorado Beetle, black instead of striped; and whether he will give instructions for a careful watch to be kept for these insects, which might be mistaken for common black beetles.

Sir T. Dugdale: The beetles said to be a black variety of the Colorado Beetle were reported as having been found by peasants in Lower Austria. Further inquiries are being made. I understand that the beetles are probably not Colorado Beetles, but a closely allied species of which several are known and which are harmless to potatoes.

Irish Cattle (Warbles)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are taken to dress Irish cattle infested with warbles on arrival at British ports.

Sir T. Dugdale: No steps are taken to treat Irish cattle on arrival at British ports since an Order requiring the compulsory dressing of infested cattle is in operation in Northern Ireland and infested cattle coming from the Irish Republic are dressed at the port of embarkation. Moreover, under the Warble Fly Order, 1948, any infested cattle coming into the ownership of a person during the dressing season must be dressed within seven days.

Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hundreds of cattle that have come in this summer from the Irish Republic have been full of warble grubs and have had to have four dressings in


this country? Will he please see that the Irish Republic do their part of this job?

Sir T. Dugdale: I will look into the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Rural Electrification (Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will ascertain from the British Electricity Authority how much of the increased capital expenditure approved for rural electrification will be allocated to the Eastern Electricity Board; and what proportion of this sum is allocated to the Essex sub-area.

Sir T. Dugdale: The allocation of the increased capital expenditure among the area boards is entirely a matter for the British Electricity Authority and the area boards, and I have no power to require them to provide the information requested.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman not clearly aware that unless steps are taken to get this additional capital investment allocated to the rural boards, the whole point of the exercise will be lost? Will he not, at any rate, get into touch with his right hon. Friend and get some powers to do it?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am in touch all the time with my right hon. Friend. I want to make it abundantly clear that the position is as set out in answer to the Question. If there are any points of detail on which the right hon. Member wants information, he must put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. G. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is the Minister of Agriculture.

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, but I am not the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Driberg: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not transfer the Question?

Swine Fever

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of outbreaks of swine fever in the present epidemic; and how far the figures show that it is now on the decline.

Sir T. Dugdale: There have been 1,887 outbreaks of swine fever since 1st December, 1952. The worst months were April and May, with over 450 outbreaks in each. I am glad to say that outbreaks have since declined to 263 in June and 51 up to 8th July.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this information will be appreciated, not only by the farmers, but by the people as a whole?

Mr. Bartley: Can the Minister tell the House of any real progress that has been made by veterinary surgeons or research workers towards discovering a cure for these epidemics of swine fever?

Sir T. Dugdale: Investigation is definitely in progress but we have had a bad series of outbreaks this year, and we are very disturbed about it.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will continue the licensing of the movement of pigs from auction markets.

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I have no intention at present of withdrawing the licensing provisions of the Regulation of Movement of Swine Order, 1950, which are an essential feature of our measures to control swine fever.

Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. Friend maintain this restriction, because there is a strong feeling that the outbreak of swine fever was started as a result of dealers taking pigs from market to market instead of retaining them on licence for 28 days after they had been to market?

Sir T. Dugdale: I could not hear my hon. Friend's supplementary Question very well, but the gist of my answer is that we are keeping an eye on the position.

Mr. G. Brown: What the hon. Member is really asking is whether "Set the swine free" would not be a good political slogan. What does the Minister think?

Threshed Peas (Marketing Scheme)

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement about progress with the consideration of a marketing scheme for homegrown threshed peas which has been before his Department for a long time.

Sir T. Dugdale: No Sir. This scheme is still under consideration by the Government.

Mr. Billiard: Is not the time taken for the consideration of this scheme rather long, especially in view of the fact that the scheme has to have the approval of the House and must be submitted to a poll of the producers, and the preliminaries are rather protracted?

Sir T. Dugdale: The preliminaries have taken a considerable time, but a number of important and difficult questions dealing with this scheme have to be resolved.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of the rough handling that the scheme has had at the inquiry and elsewhere, will the Minister make quite certain (a) that it is a marketing scheme if it comes forward and (b) that it is really worth putting forward?

Sir T. Dugdale: The right hon. Member's remarks will be taken note of.

Nationalisation (Government Policy)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that his use of the Agricultural Marketing Acts and other Acts is leading the way to the nationalisation of the farming industry; and if he will make a statement on his future policy in this regard.

Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir. On the contrary, the Government are moving steadily towards a freer agricultural economy, as is shown by the decontrol of eggs and the forthcoming decontrol of cereals and feedingstuffs.

Sir W. Smithers: Whatever the Minister says, does he not realise that in fact he is operating the Socialist policy of land nationalisation, that farmers are being dispossessed without the right of appeal to an ordinary traditional court of English law on points of fact and merit, and would he, as a Conservative Minister, stop doing these things?

Sir T. Dugdale: That has nothing whatever to do with the Marketing Acts. It may be of interest to my hon. Friend to know that any marketing scheme, before it becomes the law of the land, must first come to this House and then be agreed to by a large majority of the producers themselves.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that anxiety by the farmers about setting the industry free is the biggest conclusive proof that he is not operating Socialist policy?

Oral Answers to Questions — COASTAL DEFENCES

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has considered the letters from residents of Burnham-on-Crouch, forwarded to him by the hon. Member for Maldon, expressing concern about the state of the sea defences at Burnham and objecting to the payment of the river board rate and its inequitable incidence; and if he will make a statement.

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, and I shall be writing to the hon. Member in a few days. As I have already announced to the House, improvements are contemplated in the Burnham-on-Crouch area.

The question of drainage rates which are levied on properties in areas avoiding danger or deriving benefits from drainage operations is a difficult one. It is closely connected so far as the coastal areas are concerned with the deliberations of the Waverley Committee, and I cannot anticipate their recommendations.

Mr. Driberg: Would the Minister at least draw the attention of the Committee to the unhappy situation in places such as this where people living on one side of a street have to pay this special rate while people on the other side do not have to do so, and those who have to pay the most are those who have suffered most in the floods?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, I appreciate these difficulties and the mere fact that the Question has been asked in this House will draw the attention of the Committee to the difficult points.

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement concerning the progress of work on the restoration and strengthening of flood and sea defences, with special reference to Canvey Island.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now make a statement as to the progress of work on the strengthening of coastal defences, particularly along the coast of Norfolk; and whether all the emergency work


considered necessary will have been completed before the advent of the heavy seas likely in the autumn.

Sir T. Dugdale: In view of the considerable progress that has been achieved to date, I feel that I can say with confidence that the immediate task will be achieved and that restoration to pre-flood standard will be substantially completed by the 30th September. By that time improvement works designed to withstand a tide as severe as that which occurred on the 31st January will be very well advanced in all important areas including Canvey Island and the Norfolk coast to which my hon. Friends particularly refer.

Mr. Braine: Does that answer not indicate that my right hon. Friend was right in fixing an arbitrary date for the completion of the work by the river boards?

Mr. G. Brown: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer also indicate that the work which will not be done by that date and which will not, therefore, attract the 100 per cent. grant, will be something very unfortunate for Canvey Island and other places?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think not.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the speed with which the problem as a whole has been tackled reflects great credit on all concerned and will bring great reassurance to the people living in the afflicted areas?

Mr. Driberg: Is the Minister aware that the people of Burnham-on-Crouch are not yet aware of the speed with which the problem has been tackled? When the right hon. Gentleman refers to "all important areas," does he include that residential area? Although, of course, everybody knows that the problem at Canvey was very much bigger, nevertheless, there are people living at Burnham-on-Crouch.

Sir T. Dugdale: My answer refers to the whole coastline.

Mr. Awbery: As a large number of areas have weak coastal defences and are subject to coast erosion, will the Minister make a survey of the whole coast with a view to getting something done, not only at one spot, but in all areas?

Sir T. Dugdale: The answer indicates that we are getting on very well. We are now at 9th July. We have another few weeks before the end of September, and we anticipate that by that date we shall have the position that I have indicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — CREEKS, CANVEY ISLAND

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet approved the Essex River Board's proposal to dam Tewkes Creek and Small Gains Creek at Canvey Island.

Sir T. Dugdale: Formal approval of the proposal is being sent to the river board to-day.

Mr. Braine: May I thank my right hon. Friend for this most welcome news, and at the same time take the opportunity on behalf of my constituents of thanking him for the expeditious and sympathetic way in which he has handled this problem?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Motoring Offences (Police Instructions)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent young constables are sent out with instructions to bring in trivial motoring offenders for the purpose of gaining experience in police courts; and whether this practice has the approval of his Department and the Inspectorate of Constabulary.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): No such instructions are in force in the Metropolitan Police, and so far as my right hon. and learned Friend is aware no such practice exists in any of the county and borough police forces of England and Wales.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a northern county to my knowledge these instructions are given to young constables—they are given five minor points of trouble to look for in parked cars such as no waterproof licence cover? Does he not think it is desirable, from the point of view of establishing the


right relationship between the police and the motorist, to discourage these practices?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not aware of that. If my hon. Friend will send particulars I will certainly have them looked into.

Gaming Prosecutions (Workmen's Clubs)

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pending an amendment of the Gaming Houses Act, 1854, he will advise chief constables not to proceed against workmen's clubs in which a stipulated proportion of the proceeds of the game of house is applied to charitable objects.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is not within my right hon. and learned Friend's province to give advice as to the particular circumstances in which proceedings should or should not be taken. The decision in each case must be taken by the responsible chief officer of police.

Mr. Smith: Is it within the province of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and learned Friend to circulate to every chief constable a telescope and a blind eye?

Mock Auctions

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inquire into the methods being practised by an increasing number of mock auction businesses, with a view to considering legislation to protect the public and traders against this form of trading.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and learned Friend has recently agreed to a request from the National Chamber of Trade to send a deputation to the Home Office to discuss this matter.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a tremendous increase in this type of business and, despite the clever technique involved, it is in the main nothing less than bare-faced robbery?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As the hon. Member has given notice that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment tomorrow, I think it might be more appropriate to discuss it then.

A.F.S. and CD. (Sick Pay Scheme)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will announce the result of his consultations with local authority associations about additional disablement benefits for members of the Civil Defence Service and the Auxiliary Fire Service.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend, the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) on 25th June, he will make a statement as soon as he has received and considered the comments of the local authority associations on the proposed scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is there not a clear case for some additional compensation where, as in the case of a fireman now in a mental home, to which I have drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion, it would be desirable both on the grounds of humanity as well as recruiting for this essential service that additional compensation should be forthcoming?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As my right hon. and learned Friend said on 25th June, a scheme has been prepared. It went to the local authority associations on 17th June and we are now awaiting their reply.

Wrongful Imprisonment (Ex Gratia Payments)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what ex gratia payments he has made during the past year to persons wrongly imprisoned.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Ex gratia payments are made from time to time for a variety of reasons but during the period in question there has been no case in which any payment was made in respect of wrongful imprisonment.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Why is the Home Secretary so mean and heartless in a case of this kind? Does the hon. Gentleman recall the case of Penfold, who was three weeks in Brixton and was given £5 from the magistrate's poor box, and the eighteen-years-old girl of St. Austell who was imprisoned for three weeks and


had a small contribution towards the cost of her appeal? Will he give the same kind of treatment to the dustman in Warwickshire, whose case I hope is now being sympathetically considered?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to raise particular cases, I hope he will put down a Question, or write to my right hon. and learned Friend or to me.

Flood Victims (Unopened Gifts)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department at which depots mailbags and sacks containing gifts intended for flood victims are still unopened; and what is the number still to be opened.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mailbags, sacks and parcels containing gifts for flood victims still remain unopened; what attempts have been made, by public appeal or otherwise, to get additional voluntary labour for this task; and when he expects that all the parcels will have been opened and the gifts distributed.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and learned Friend is informed by the Women's Voluntary Services that no mailbags remain unopened and that it is estimated that 85 per cent. of the packages received have been unpacked and dealt with. The number of garments already unpacked, sorted and graded is approximately 10 million. Distribution is still continuing and a generous issue of winter clothing is planned. It is not possible to say when all the clothing will have been disposed of.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Government of the day have some responsibility to the millions who were so good as to send these parcels, and that the parcels should have been opened before now? On his own statement 15 per cent. are still unopened. Does he not think that is wrong when all that is required is an application to other authorities to help the W.V.S., who do not seem able to do the job fast enough?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Having regard to the very large number of parcels involved, I think that the hon. Member is less than

generous to the magnificent work of the Women's Voluntary Services.

Mr. Driberg: While everyone appreciates the good work of the W.V.S., does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that five months taken in unpacking parcels is a very speedy job, even though there are a large number of articles? Could he not call in some other agencies to assist because, on the percentage he quoted, it seems that a million garments are still undistributed?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not think the hon. Member realised that I said that all the mailbags had been opened. It is only 15 per cent. of the packages which remain unpacked. The number is very large and, as I told the House last week, no damage is being done to the garments not yet unpacked.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that various other organisations are anxious to help in this work? Why should they be kept out and why should the work only be given to the W.V.S., who have been on it for five months?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I was not aware that other offers of help had been made. If the hon. Member will communicate with me I will look into the matter.

Mr. Assheton: Is not my hon. Friend of the opinion that many hon. Members in this House do not know how big a million is?

Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. Gentleman please answer the middle part of my Question 36:
what attempts have been made, by public appeal or otherwise, to get additional voluntary labour …
What is the point of saying that these garments are not suffering any damage? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that they were needed four or five months ago?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think I am right in saying that the total of garments is in excess of the immediate needs. As I have indicated in my answer, it is a question of making garments available for the coming winter. As to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the Chairman of the W.V.S. has today sent a personal letter to all W.V.S. regions asking for a big effort to dispose of these gifts.

Traffic Congestion, London (Police Manpower)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the shortage of police necessary for enforcing more stringent parking regulations, restricts the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis from encouraging or participating in any bold measures for the removal of congestion from London streets.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Although the Metropolitan police are undoubtedly handicapped by the existing manpower shortages in dealing as comprehensively as the Commissioner of Police would wish with the various causes of traffic congestion in London I am assured that the Commissioner would not be deterred for this reason from encouraging or participating in any scheme which he thought likely to assist in the removal of congestion from the London streets.

Condemned Prisoner (Communications)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the prisoner Christie now under sentence of death has been allowed, since his conviction, to communicate with representatives of any newspaper or with any persons other than officials and his legal advisers.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The prisoner Christie has not been allowed since his conviction to communicate with newspaper representatives and until yesterday had had no visits except from his legal advisers. He has written only one letter, which was not in any way concerned with publicity.

Mr. Marlowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that on Wednesday of last week the "News Chronicle" published a purported statement, or a confession, which they said had been made by Christie—to a prison official, they said? Without trespassing on the inquiry now going on, may I ask if my hon. Friend has any reason to suppose that Christie has had any communication with the Press, or that such a statement as was made by the "News Chronicle" could be well-founded?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The answer I have given is the truth and the whole

truth in this connection. Although I am aware of the statement to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, I am not in a position to speculate on how it came about.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last Sunday the "Sunday Pictorial" published a long article which was advertised as being the first of a series of articles purporting to be the personal confessions of Christie, and that the paper has gone so far as to publish a facsimile copy of his handwriting purporting to prove that these are genuine and authentic articles? Will the hon. Gentleman say now, or if he is unable to say now will he inquire, on what terms this newspaper has obtained possession of these alleged confessions; because it is a serious matter in the opinion of many hon. Members of this House that a newspaper should interfere with the course of justice whether by paying for the defence on conditions, or in any other way?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I can only repeat what I have already said. The prisoner Christie has had no visits, except from his legal advisers, since the date of his conviction.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Can my hon. Friend say whether it would be possible for legal advisers to act as intermediaries for the Press?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My hon. Friend must form his own opinion on that matter.

Convicted Murderers (Press Articles)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are given to persons convicted of murder to write articles for the Press.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: None, Sir.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the Minister think that some reconsideration should be given to all these arrangements? Does not he think that this arrangement between the legal profession and the Press for the exploitation of murder has gone to the extent of constituting an offence against social morality? Does not he think that this regular exhibition, this exploitation of murder, has made a section of the British Press earn the reputation of being the worst Press in the world, and has not the time come when there should be an investigation?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I can only say that no facilities are provided and that the implications contained in the supplementary question of the hon. Member are not a matter for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (REPORT)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now state when he anticipates receiving the report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment was appointed; when he estimates that its report will be made; and when it will be available to the House.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Royal Commission was appointed in May, 1949. As I stated in reply to Questions on 2nd July, my right hon. and learned Friend is informed that he may expect to receive the report of the Commission before the end of this month, and it will be presented to Parliament and published as soon as possible thereafter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING (POTATO PRICES)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Labour the average retail price of new potatoes taken into account for the cost-of-living index for each week during the six-week period commencing 4th May, 1953.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): In accordance with the recommendation of the Cost of Living Advisory Committee, the cost of new potatoes is not, at that time of the year, taken into account in calculating the Interim Index of Retail Prices.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, owing to the policy of the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture, which led to the exclusion of imports of new potatoes at a time when the home crop was totally inadequate, the failure to take the price of these potatoes into account

meant that we were leaving out a very important element in the cost of living, because there were not enough old potatoes to feed the people at that period?

Sir W. Monckton: The principle has been for many years past, and the Cost of Living Advisory Committee still think it right, that in the month of May prices of potatoes used are those of old potatoes only, so long as there are reasonable quantities on sale and sufficient quotations can be obtained. That happened this year, as in the years preceding.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Easington

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour the number of partially disabled mineworkers who, owing to their disability, are unable to obtain employment in their occupation and who are registered at the employment exchanges in the Easington rural area; and whether he has any scheme in contemplation for providing them with employment.

Sir W. Monckton: There are 75 disabled coalminers unemployed in the Easington rural area, of whom 11 are classified as unlikely to obtain employment except under sheltered conditions. My officers make continuous efforts to place them in employment and co-operate with other Departments concerned in encouraging the introduction of fresh employment opportunities both for these men and other unemployed persons in the area.

Mr. Slater: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that more should be done for these disabled men, that the setting up of more rehabilitation centres should be considered? Is he aware that these men feel they are the forgotten men?

Sir W. Monckton: I can assure the hon. Member that view is not taken by me or by my Department. We do our best to see that opportunities are given. There are in that area, as the hon. Member probably knows, three Remploy factories for those requiring employment under sheltered conditions. This is an area in which it is difficult to find employment for disabled people who do not require sheltered conditions.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a considerable number of women who are registered at the employment exchanges in the Easington rural area; and whether he intends to find employment for them.

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, I am aware that there is a considerable number of women available for employment in this area. The employment exchanges are doing all they can to assist them to find work.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise there is only one means of finding work in the area, and that is to introduce new and lighter industries into the new town of Peterlee and the adjoining district? Will he try to persuade the President of the Board of Trade to do something in that direction?

Sir W. Monckton: I saw that the right hon. Gentleman did something himself earlier in the week. I will try to assist his efforts.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is precisely because I have very little influence with the President of the Board of Trade that I am asking him to appeal to his right hon. Friend?

Sir W. Monckton: We will see what we can do together.

Wage Increases (Arbitration Boards)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will recommend to arbitration boards that, white the cost of living remains steady, any wage increases should take the form of an incentive bonus rather than an addition to the basic wage, with a view to stimulating greater national productivity.

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. It would be contrary to our long-standing tradition and practice for the Government to make recommendations to the arbitration boards as to the nature of their awards.

Captain Pilkington: Can my right hon. and learned Friend take any other action which is open to him on a matter on which I think it is agreed on all sides of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—will increase productivity, which is the

only way by which the standard of living of the people as a whole can be raised?

Sir W. Monckton: I do my best to encourage an increase in the standard of productivity, and I shall refrain from making any sort of remarks to the arbitration boards.

Mr. Isaacs: Is the Minister aware that even the suggestion made by his hon. Friend below the Gangway is likely to cause concern among the trade unions, because the slightest suggestion of any attempt to interfere with an arbitrator is likely to bring the arbitration to a close?

Sir W. Monckton: It would not be only on one side among those concerned in industry that it would be resented. I do not think anyone should say more.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET MINISTERS

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to increase the number of Members of the House of Commons in the Cabinet.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): This is not, I think, a matter on which my right hon. Friend would wish to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's curiosity.

Mr. Jay: Has the Chancellor noticed that of the now functioning members of the Cabinet, over half are in the House of Lords? Is it deliberate Government policy to extend the power of the House of Lords over the Cabinet, or is the fact that the Prime Minister cannot find suitable candidates on the benches opposite?

Mr. Butler: I should have thought that the immense preponderance both of intelligence and Parliamentary success witnessed recently in this House would vindicate the situation as at present arranged by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. H. Morrison: While noting with regret that the right hon. Gentleman is reverting to his earlier style of Parliamentary evasion, is not it the case that when the Government was formed the preponderance of peers in the Government was excessive, and that owing to illness, which we all regret, is it not the case now that the responsible Cabinet is underrepresented—seriously underrepresented—in the deliberations of this House?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the accident of illness cannot, unfortunately, be helped. He will be gratified to hear that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Housing and Local Government are making very satisfactory progress towards recovery. All of us will be glad to hear that, and none of us can help illness—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Prime Minister?"] The Prime Minister also is doing very well. Apart from that, the total number of peers in this Government is 19, compared with 16 in the last Government, and I do not think that the discrepancy is so very great.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman is an adept at dealing with figures. He must remember that there were only three peers in the Cabinet in the former Administration, which is a very different thing from taking into account the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms.

Mr. Butler: On the matter of figures I feel sure I should not need so much proficiency as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in his new post. But leaving that on one side, I have here a note to the effect that the number of peers was not only three, but went up to four at one time in the Labour Government.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman is correct with regard to, I think, the first year of the Labour Government. Thereafter the figure was three—certainly for the last two or three years.

Mr. Butler: That may well account for the decline in the prestige of the Labour Government.

Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman, in an earlier reply to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend, referred to the Prime Minister and said he was getting along very well, will he tell us what is wrong with the Prime Minister? May we not now know? If the right hon. Gentleman informs the House that the Prime Minister is getting along very well, cannot he tell us what is wrong?

Mr. Butler: There is no mystery about the matter. A statement was made which said that the Prime Minister had to take at least a month's rest, and I am glad to say that the rest is doing the Prime Minister a great deal of good.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister what are the present duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement made on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 24th March. It has not been customary to detail the functions discharged by senior Ministers without Departmental duties, except in special circumstances.
On this occasion, it can be said that, since the appointment of the Lord President of the Council as Acting Foreign Secretary, some of the duties normally performed by him have been transferred to the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Mr. Jay: Can the Chancellor say whether it is with the advice and approval of the Chancellor of the Duchy that the Minister of Food landed the meat trade in confusion during last week?

Mr. Butler: All I can say about the Minister of Food is that, if anybody else can do as good a job as he has been doing, they are welcome to it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: For the better information of hon. Members and the general public, will the Chancellor say who is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Who occupies that post?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the published list of Government appointments.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of the duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy, and say whether his employment is reasonably full-time or not?

Mr. Butler: The post of Chancellor of the Duchy has been held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), and, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know what the duties are, I suggest that he should apply to his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Jay: Would I be in order in reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is Lord Woolton?

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, in his temporary elevation, to treat the House of Commons even worse than the Prime Minister did when he was here?

Mr. Butler: The answer to that is "No, Sir."

Oral Answers to Questions — S.H.A.P.E. (SENIOR POSTS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about the recent changes in the senior posts, land and air, at Supreme Headquarters, Allied Forces in Europe.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir, the first is the establishment of a Commander-in-Chief in the Central European Sector, with co-equal subordinate army, air and naval commands. This is the organisation which already exists in the Northern and Southern European commands. The second is that wider responsibilities are to be given to the Deputy Supreme Commander, Air, at S.H.A.P.E.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Basil Embry will take over from General Norstad as Commander of all the tactical air forces in the Central Sector, and the latter will relieve Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Saunders who has been Air Deputy at S.H.A.P.E. for the past two years.
These changes were naturally approved by Her Majesty's Government, and we consider that they will provide a sounder military command organisation on the Continent.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that, when recent changes took place in the appointments of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and Chief of Staff, an American officer succeeded an American officer? Why is it that, in the case of the Air Deputy, a British officer was succeeded by an American officer? Are there no British air marshals capable of discharging the functions of Air Deputy, or does this new appointment argue a great decline in our influence and in the esteem in which we are held by other countries with whom we are in friendly contact?

Mr. Butler: Not at all. While we have lost the Air Deputy post, a British officer has taken over from an American as Commander of Tactical Air Forces,

Central Europe, and I would further remind the House that the following offices are held by Britishers: Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; C.-in-C., Northern Area; C.-in-C., Mediterranean; Commander, Naval Forces, Northern Europe; Commander. Northern Army Group; and Commander of the Second Allied Tactical Air Force.

Mr. Henderson: Does not the Chancellor agree that, in the case of the French marshal, he has been given greater responsibility; in the case of the American air general, he has been given greater responsibility; and, in the case of the British officer—a very distinguished officer—he has been given an appointment which is of lesser rank than that occupied by Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Saunders?

Mr. Butler: I think it is quite right to put these matters forward, but, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes into consideration the statement that I have made about the air side, and other offices which we hold, I think he will see that we are really in a satisfactory position.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is precisely because Air Chief Marshal Sir Basil Embry has been appointed to a subordinate post in the Central Sector, instead of a British air marshal being appointed to the post formerly held by Sir Hugh Saunders, that we complain; and is he also aware, in regard to the Deputy Supreme Commander, Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, that it is reported that he is due to retire at the end of the year, and that that will leave Marshal Juin in charge of all land forces from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and will also leave Marshal Juin in command of all French forces? Is that a satisfactory set-up in S.H.A.P.E.?

Mr. Butler: We had better deal with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman question when we reach it. In regard to the former part, I do not believe that there is anything derogatory to Britain in the arrangements that have been made.

Brigadier Medlicott: While not wishing to raise any question at all in regard to nationalities, which would be very undesirable, can we have an assurance


that, in the event of any emergency arising in the forseeable future, arrangements will be made so that the vital services of Lord Montgomery may be made available on the highest level?

An Hon. Member: Put him in the Government.

Mr. Butler: I think that the services of Lord Montgomery are fully appreciated by the Government and the House, and my hon. and gallant Friend may feel sure that the utmost use will be made of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (TRUCE TALKS)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the possibilities of a truce in Korea.

Mr. R. A. Butler: On 8th July, the Chinese and North Korean Commanders sent a letter to General Mark Clark agreeing to his proposal for a further meeting of the armistice delegations. According to news agency reports just received, the liaison officers of the two sides have arranged for this meeting to take place tomorrow, 10th July. Her Majesty's Government are glad that General Clark's suggestion has been accepted by the other side, and that direct contact between the armistice delegations is to be resumed.
On the negotiations between President Syngman Rhee and Mr. Robertson, I have nothing to add to what I said on Monday.

Sir R. Acland: Does not the Chancellor feel that, now that Senators Knowland and McCarthy are openly backing President Syngman Rhee's intransigence, we are reaching a position in which the voice of Britain will have to be heard, and that we shall have to say that we cannot for ever be associated with a war carried on for no other purpose than to back up Syngman Rhee's aggressive intent?

Mr. Butler: All these serious aspects are realised on both sides of the Atlantic. Meanwhile, I think the House will be pleased to hear that direct contact will be resumed tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: Will the Leader of the House now tell us the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 13TH JULY—Third Reading: Finance Bill, until about 8 p.m.

Report and Third Reading: University of St. Andrew's Bill [Lords]; Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Report and Third Reading: National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (No. 2) Bill.

TUESDAY, 14TH JULY—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Committee—

Debate on Scottish Industry, Employment and Well-being.

Second Reading: Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 15TH JULY—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: Committee—

Conclusion of debate on Scottish Industry, Employment and Well-being.

Motions relating to: Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order; Herring Industry (Grants for Fishing Vessels and Engines) Scheme; White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme.

THURSDAY, 16TH JULY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: Committee—

Debate on Colonial Economic Development, the Colombo Plan and the work of the United Nations Agencies for the Development of the Backward Areas of the World.

Consideration of the Motion relating to Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation.

FRIDAY, 17TH JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill.

Committee and, if possible, the remaining stages of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission Bill.

Committee and remaining stages of the Post Office Bill [Lords]: and the Registration Service Bill [Lords] which are both Consolidation Measures.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Leader of the House note that, in view of the obvious need for a discussion on foreign affairs before the House rises, we should like to have a two-day discussion in the week after next on foreign affairs.

Mr. Crookshank: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the Leader of the House propose to find Government time to debate the British Transport Commission's Report before we adjourn for the summer Recess?

Mr. Crookshank: I do not see any opportunity of finding Government time but as I said the other day, perhaps that could best be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that the Government refuse to find time because they do not want this very fine report to be discussed?

Mr. Crookshank: That is not the position at all. From now until the summer Recess there are only five days of Government time and we should not like the time of the House to be wasted by not concluding the legislation now before it.

Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman said something about there being no Government time available. He is aware, I presume, that the Government are under an obligation to find three days for the discussion of the affairs of public corporations?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman asked for a discussion before the summer Recess. That is quite a different matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: When in Opposition were not hon. Gentlemen constantly complaining that the reports of the nationalised boards could not be discussed until they were long out of date, and have not the Government allowed nine months to go by without a single discussion?

Mr. Crookshank: There have not been nine months since the publication of these Reports but only a comparatively short time. Perhaps this matter can be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that so much time has been generously awarded to Scotland next week, and that English Members will not attend during those debates, would it not be for the convenience of the House if the House met in Edinburgh?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Wyatt: When we get to the foreign affairs debate, will the acting Prime Minister speak for the Government? Will anybody in authority be able to speak for the Government, or will special arrangements have to be made to have a committee meeting upstairs to meet the acting-Foreign Minister?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not anomalous to suggest that a discussion of the Report of the British Transport Commission would be a waste of time of the House, in view of the urgency of the subject?

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. and learned Gentleman is surely too learned to try to put words into my mouth which I never used.

Mr. Robens: If I were to mention "Council of Europe" would it strike a chord in the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Crookshank: Certainly, a voice from the past, because I told the right hon. Gentleman the other day that I never see him without thinking of that interesting and absorbing topic. As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has just said, there are to be two days on foreign affairs, and it might be possible that this subject could be mentioned during those two days.

Mr. Norman Smith: Can the Leader of the House say definitely when the House will adjourn for the summer Recess?

Mr. Crookshank: I should be very glad to do so, but it depends how we get along during the month of July. I could not possibly give a definite date now, but I might possibly express a hope. The hope would be that it will be before Bank Holiday, but it will require some cooperation.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information whether we are likely to have an


opportunity before the Session ends of hearing and discussing the Government's plans about the continuation of National Service and whether it can be done by Order in Council or whether there has to be an amending Measure? Obviously the matter will have to be dealt with at some time.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, but it does not have to be dealt with in July, I am happy to say.

Mr. Harold Davies: Can the Leader of the House inform us whether there will be an opportunity before the Recess to discuss the British coal situation, the Government's policy with regard to coal at home and for export, and our relationship to the European Coal Community?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot answer that, because there are still a number of days at the disposal of Her Majesty's Opposition, who might possibly suggest that subject for one of them.

Mr. Mikardo: How is it that, while the right hon. Gentleman does not know when we shall rise for the summer Recess, he does know that there are only five days of Government time now remaining?

Mr. Crookshank: Because the five days to which I referred are based upon the hope.

Mr. Follick: As I am personally interested in the matter, I should like to know if we are coming back after the Recess or not.

GOLD COAST (PUBLIC SERVICE)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Public Service in the Gold Coast.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of a statement which the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast made yesterday in the Legislative Assembly about the future of the Gold Coast Public Service, with particular reference to overseas officers. The statement recognises that, to maintain an efficient administrative machine, the Gold Coast Government

will for some years to come need the services of overseas officers. The Gold Coast Government therefore guarantee to overseas officers pensions and terms of service no less favourable than those obtaining today, and the maintenance of the principle of promotion by merit alone.
The statement proposes the introduction, not later than July, 1954, of the first stage of a two-stage scheme of compensation, additional to normal pensions, for serving officers retiring before their time. It suggests that, after the scheme has been approved by the Gold Coast Legislative Assembly and by the Secretary of State, it should form part of any constitutional settlement reached between Her Majesty's Government and the Gold Coast Government.
I welcome this statement and the intention of the Gold Coast Government which it proclaims, to retain the services of overseas officers under satisfactory conditions of service. I also warmly welcome the ready recognition by the Gold Coast Government of their responsibility to compensate officers whose conditions of appointment may be affected by future constitutional changes, and their desire to work out a fair and reasonable scheme.

Mr. Attlee: We shall, of course, want to study the statement in detail, but I think that we would also wish to express our admiration of the speech of the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast. It seemed to me to be full of statesmanship and a recognition that this is a very difficult subject. I had some experience of it in relation to India and Pakistan. If the Gold Coast Government are to function in the future it is quite essential that the administration should be kept up to the highest pitch. I think that that can only be done at the present time by British officers being given confidence.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: To create that confidence among British officers is it not time that we built up steadily some form of Commonwealth service based on security of pension in this country, so that the long-term interests of these people should be safeguarded?

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is a wider question, and the statement which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT is very long.

Mr. Speaker, I seek your permission to make an important statement on the future of the Public Service with particular reference to overseas officers. The occasion for making this statement arises from the proposals in the White Paper, which envisage a change in the position of officers for whom the Secretary of State is responsible. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is particularly concerned with two important aspects of this problem. First, how to help the successful development of the country by continuing to provide overseas staff as requested by the Gold Coast Government and by supporting the expressed desire of this Government to encourage overseas officers to remain in the Service for as long as they are needed. Secondly, he wishes to fulfil his obligations towards officers holding Secretary of State's appointments.

This Government, for its part, realises that it must have an efficient administrative machine to give effect to Government policy and it is at one with the Secretary of State in its desire to ensure that the responsibility towards officers holding Secretary of State's appointments is fully discharged. In this respect the Gold Coast would not wish to be any less conscious of its responsibilities than were the Governments of India, Pakistan and Ceylon

But having said this, I wish to emphasise that in the context of this statement the countries which I have mentioned do not provide an exact analogy with the Gold Coast. At the time they achieved independence all of them had a Public Service which was largely indigenous. In my October statement on constitutional reform, I remarked that in the Gold Coast political advance had outstripped the Africanisation of the Public Service. We find ourselves, therefore, on the threshhold of independence having to rely far more on the services of overseas officers than was the case in India and the other countries which I have mentioned.

The Africanisation of the Public Service has made great strides in recent times and the Government is doing everything possible compatible with efficiency to accelerate the pace of Africanisation. We have more than laid the foundations of the African Civil Service of the future. But the fact must be faced that for some years to come we shall have to continue to rely on the services of overseas officers. It is therefore imperative that we should make our attitude clear towards this class of officer, and that the officers themselves should know where they stand.

I am aware that on the eve of fundamental constitutional changes which inevitably involve a change of conditions of their service, there is a feeling of uncertainty regarding their future among serving officers. I want to allay this uncertainty by assuring overseas officers that a fully self-governing Gold Coast will need and want their services and that their interests will be fully safeguarded.

I will now outline the general principles which Government propose to adopt. At the outset, I would remark that one of the main considerations is to provide a breathing space

during which the transition to a Gold Coast Local Service can be completed as smoothly as possible. We seek to avoid any sudden exodus of overseas officers and by safeguarding their future to induce them to remain

While appreciating the need for accelerated Africanisation, Government do not propose that this should be achieved at the expense of efficiency, or that promotion in the Service should be on the basis of colour. At the same time, changed conditions of service will be recognised by the introduction of a scheme for compensation. The timetable for this scheme is related more to the need for achieving a smooth transition than to the programme for constitutional reform.

Before I embark on the details of the timetable I should like to give certain general assurances. We guarantee pensions and reasonable terms of service which will be no less favourable than those obtaining today, and we propose to maintain the principle that promotion is by merit alone. This is without prejudice to a policy under which special facilities will be accorded to Africans to enable them to compete on merit with overseas officers. All overseas officers desiring to do so will have the right to join the Local Service.

I come now to the details of our proposals. A scheme will be introduced not later than July, 1954, under which serving officers will be permitted to retire, if they so desire, with a compensatory allowance in addition to their earned pension. This arrangement takes into consideration that the proposals for the next constitutional advance will result in a diminution of existing safeguards, but will not amount to a radical change.

I have in mind the possible disappearance of ex-officio Ministers; the consultations with the Prime Minister in regard to the filling of certain higher posts in the Civil Service and in respect of appointments to the Public Service Commission; the attachment of the Establishment Secretary to the office of the Prime Minister; and the proposal to create training posts in the interests of accelerated Africanisation. I want to make it quite clear, however, that these changes are in no way intended to prejudice the principle emphasised in the White Paper that the public service should be free from political control or influence.

There will be no supersession of serving officers on the grounds of race; the Public Service Commission, however, would have discretion to widen the field of recruitment to promotion posts if, in their opinion, there were not officers in the service of sufficient experience and of the necessary calibre to fill any specific appointment, or in the case of newly created posts to which special conditions apply.

Not more than two years after the introduction of the scheme of compensatory allowance, Government will introduce a scheme of lump sum compensation, as has been done elsewhere. The details of this scheme are still the subject of actuarial examination. At this stage, any officer who desires to do so would have the alternative of retiring with his ordinary pension and compensatory allowance.

In the case of African officers, it is considered that sentiments of patriotism will impel them to continue to serve their country and that they can look for a positive improvement in their prospects. Nevertheless, it has been agreed in view of the Secretary of State's responsibility for those African officers who have not opted to join the local service that any African officer holding a Secretary of State's appointment who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that his position and prospects in the service have been prejudiced, or that he has legitimate cause for anxiety about his future in the service, should be permitted to retire under the compensation scheme. This is in accordance with the precedent afforded by India, but it is anticipated that such cases would be rare, if any occurred at all.

At the request of the Gold Coast Government, the Secretary of State has agreed that officers for whom he has a responsibility and who by the end of the transitional period join the Gold Coast Local Service will continue thereafter to be eligible for transfer within the Colonial Service. Officers accepting transfer without a break in service to equivalent pensionable posts elsewhere would have no right to compensation; but those remaining in the Gold Coast Local Service would have a continuing right to retire with either form of compensation.

The representatives of the Association of Senior Civil Servants have already been informed of these proposals and will be further consulted before they are finalised. It is intended that after finality has been reached on these proposals which are subject to the approval of this Assembly and of the Secretary of State, the arrangements will be confirmed in any Constitutional Settlement arrived at with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I trust that in the result the future of the Public Service in the Gold Coast will be assured, and that this country, whatever Government is in power, will be able to rely on the loyalty and efficiency of the members of that Service.

BILL PRESENTED

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL

"to amend the law with respect to customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. Boyd-Carpenter; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — VALUATION FOR RATING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2.—(NEW PROVISIONS FOR ASCERTAINING GROSS VALUE OF DWELLING-HOUSES AND PRIVATE GARAGES.)

3.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "garage," to insert:
or private storage premises.

This Amendment is the first of a string of Amendments which are designed to meet the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government gave an assurance that the Bill would be amended to provide for the assessment on 1939 values, and not current values, of cycle, perambulator or store sheds where they form a separate rateable hereditament. As the Bill stands, if a shed is within the curtilage it is valued at 1939 value, but if it is outside the curtilage and forms a separate hereditament it will be valued at current value.

The hon. Member for Clapham, quite rightly, pointed out that in the case of London municipal flats, where the occupant of a flat had a storage shed or perambulator shed outside the curtilage it would be unfair on the occupant of that flat if he had to pay on a higher assessment than he would have to pay if the shed were within the curtilage. This Amendment, therefore, has been designed to meet that point.

One of the other Amendments defines the words "private storage premises."

3.45 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I only rise to address my thanks to the Minister for having so completely met the points which I raised in Committee. This provision will be of very great help to tenants not only of London County Council flats but of flats which are being built in many other towns and boroughs where additional amenities of this kind


provided for the service of tenants are well away from the flats in which those tenants live.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: As one who was associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) in advocating this course in Committee, I should like to thank the Minister for meeting the points which were then raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move m page 1, line 18, at the end, to insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in a case where that rent exceeds the amount which would be the gross value of the hereditament if ascertained by reference to the said definition.
This is a drafting Amendment, which is aimed at brevity and simplicity, something which hon. Members are always pressing upon the Government of the day. It affects Clause 2 (1), which says that the gross values shall not be ascertained by reference to current values and consequently that the gross values, for rateable purposes, shall be ascertained as laid down in Clause 2 (2), that is, shall be the 1939 values.
The 1939 rateable values are acceptable to those houses where the 1939 value is lower than the current value, but, of course, it is unfair and, ipso facto, unacceptable to those houses where the current value in 1953, 1954 and 1955 is less than the 1939 values. The type of house which my right hon. Friend has in mind is a house that has lost its letting value since the war. It may be in a war-damaged area and worth less than it was in 1939 and, therefore, it would be unfair to say that it should take the 1939 value. It is right and proper that it should take the current value, if that value is lower. So that category is an exception to the rule of 1939 value.

Clause 2 (7) of the Bill contains about 14 lines of almost incomprehensible words to me as a layman, and it is those words that make this exception. It was found that if the 14 lines were omitted and the four lines on the Order Paper inserted in their place those four lines, which are comprehensible, would carry out the same purpose. This Amendment, therefore, does not alter the effect of the Bill. It makes it simpler and shorter, and, I hope, more comprehensible It inserts four lines

which can be understood by a layman in place of 14 that I do not think can be understood. I hope that the House will accept that explanation and will agree to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the next three Amendments on the Order Paper are consequential.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from "time," to "and" in line 14, and to insert "of valuation."
I do not think that the three Amendments are consequential, Mr. Speaker, but I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we took the Amendment in page 2, and in page 3, line 15.
The first two Amendments are preparatory to the third, which is designed to meet the point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who asked what was the meaning of the words:
… at the time when the gross value  being ascertained; …
There seems to be some doubt about it and the hon. Member properly raised the matter. My right hon. Friend undertook to look at it. It is not quite clear whether this denotes the time when the new list comes into force or when the proposal to alter it is made, or whether it might denote a later time when, perhaps, the courts were determining the dispute. This Amendment leaves the legal position as it is at present. That was decided in the case of Barratt v. Gravesend, a very famous case in 1941, to the effect that the material date for valuation is that at which the proposal is made.
There has been no decision as to the date in connection with the new list, but I think it is common opinion among the valuers that the material date is that at which the list comes into force. Therefore, this Amendment leaves the law as it is today, namely, that the operative date is the date when the list comes into force. If there were an action in the courts and the matter dragged out for some time the operative date would be the date when the list came into force and not when the court came to a decision.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for meeting this small point that I made


in the course of our discussions upstairs? I must not be critical, but I will offer a reflection on the use of the English language because I see that we are to amend paragraph (a) in this subsection to read:
… subsists at the time of valuation; 
and, at the same time, are to say that the time of valuation is not the time of valuation but the time at which the valuation would have fallen to be made. I suppose we get there in the end, but it is one of those exercises in time in which the scientists have been indulging for many years and in which, apparently, we also indulge.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I should like to know whether the effect of this Amendment will be that valuation for rating in respect of new houses before the new list materialises, will be based on current values or on 1939 values.

Mr. Marples: The new list will, of course, be made out on the basis that is laid down in this Bill when it becomes an Act, which is, in effect, the 1939 value, except in those cases which are called "white elephant" houses, which have lost their value, in which case it will be the current value if the current value is lower than the 1939 value.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Perhaps the Minister would like to consider this. This is a very important matter. I wish to know, in view of this Amendment, so far as valuation is concerned, whether proposals that are made now or at any time before the new list materialises are based on present values and not on 1939 values.

Mr. Marples: No assessments will be made except on the provisions laid down in this Bill. It has proved quite impossible to make new lists on the basis of the 1948 Act. That is the reason for this Measure. Therefore, the basis of valuation of the new list which will be deposited will, of course, be on the 1939 values except, as I have said, in the case of "white elephant" houses.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, leave out line 23, and insert "of valuation."

In page 3, line 15, at end, insert:
(7) For the purposes of this section the time of valuation, in relation to any act done or proceeding taken for the purpose mentioned

in subsection (1) of this section, shall be taken to be the time by reference to which the gross value of the hereditament in question would for the purposes of that act or proceeding have fallen to be ascertained if this section had not been enacted.

In page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Marples.]

Clause 3.—(DEFINITIONS OF "DWELLING-HOUSE" AND "PRIVATE GARAGE.")

Mr. Marples: I beg to move in page 3, line 33, to leave out "and."

Mr. Speaker: I take it that this is consequential on the first Amendment, in page 1, line 11?

Mr. Marples: It is, Mr. Speaker. It prepares a way for the definition of "private storage premises" which comes later in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 34 and 35, and to insert:
having a floor space not exceeding two hundred and forty square feet and used as a lock-up garage, other than a hereditament.
This is a drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that what makes a structure count as a private garage and so assessable as a private garage—that is, at 1939 values—is what it was being used for and not what it was built for. It may be built as a garage and perhaps used as a store for fruit, as it often is in the West End of London, in which case it should be assessed not on 1939 values but on current values. This makes it quite clear that the test is what it is used for and not what it was built for.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 3, line 46, at the end, to insert:
and the expression 'private storage premises' means a hereditament used wholly in connection with a dwelling-house or dwelling houses and so used wholly or mainly for the storage or accommodation of any of the following articles belonging to persons residing in that dwelling-house or those dwelling-houses, namely, household stores and other articles of domestic use and light vehicles (that is to say, bicycles, tricycles, perambulators and other similar vehicles) whether mechanically propelled or not.
This is a definition which appears on the Order Paper to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Clapham. We have carefully studied his speech in Committee and have taken note of the great


erudition that he displays in these matters, and we have tried, in this Amendment, to meet the point that he raised. I think he will find that it covers almost all the things asked for by him. I can assure him that we went into it in great detail, and that I think this is sufficiently comprehensive for his purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(MODIFICATION OF GROSS VALUE IN CASE OF AGRICULTURAL DWELLING-HOUSES.)

Amendments made: In page 6, line 13, leave out from beginning, to "from," in line 18, and insert:
subsection (2) of section two of this Act shall have effect as if the undertaking on the part of the tenant referred to in that subsection had incorporated a provision precluding the hereditament.

In page 6, line 32, leave out from "shall" to end of line 33, and insert:
apply for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) of section two of this Act, that is to say, for determining what would be the gross value if ascertained as mentioned in that proviso, but shall not apply for the purpose of ascertaining the gross value of a hereditament where that value falls to be ascertained in accordance with the said subsection (1)."—[Mr. Marples.]

Clause 6.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS WHERE ADDITIONAL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY LANDLORD.)

Mr. Marples: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, after "garage," to insert:
or private storage premises.
This and the next three Amendments are consequential on what I have called a private storage premises Amendment arising from a point made by the hon. Member for Clapham in Committee. They either insert the words "private storage premises" or alter the Title so as to include "private storage premises."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 15 after "garage," insert:
or private storage premises."—[Mr. Marples.]

Title

Amendments made: In line 2, leave out first "and."

After "garages." insert:
and private storage premises."—[Mr. Marples.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Marples: I think I should say a few words on Third Reading. I want to express the thanks of my right hon. Friend and myself, first, for the reasoned Amendments and suggestions made in Committee by hon. Members opposite, who have great knowledge of this subject. There is no doubt that they have helped to make this Measure a better one. Most of the Amendments put down on the Report stage resulted from discussions in Committee upstairs. I also thank hon. Members opposite for the spirit in which they took part in the debates. They were opposed in principle to some of the steps we proposed, but they contributed to the debate in a spirit of helpfulness and brevity.
Although they are opposed in principle to this Measure, they have not yet been able to offer an alternative which would work, as the hon. Member for Sowerby frequently pointed out. If it is not impertinent, I should like to thank him for that. He became a kind of assistant unpaid Parliamentary Secretary to my right hon. Friend and, in the absence of my right hon. Friend in hospital, I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman might care to come over to this side of the House and assist me in the final stages of this Measure.
I want to make it quite clear that this Bill does not alter the main structure of the rating provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948. There, the rating valuation was transferred to the central Government by hon. Members opposite, in the days of the Socialist Government, and we have kept that quite intact. They then decided to abolish the rating of electricity undertakings and railways, and that has not been affected. They also decided that the valuation of properties, other than dwelling-houses, should be left under the provisions of the 1925 Act, on current values. This Bill does not affect that. All that we have provided is that the rating of houses shall be on the 1939 basis, as hon. Members opposite proposed in their 1948 Act. But we have had to alter the definition of that basis because it proved to be the only way in which it would work.
On Third Reading, it is inevitable that we get a certain amount of repetition. It would not be right for me to pursue some of the topics which were raised on Second Reading, which ranged far and wide. We had the help of a wealth of talent, not only in this House but from experts outside, such as Henry George, Mr. Neville Chamberlain and Mrs. Hicks, all of whom made a great study of this matter, but it would be out of order to go further into their views now.
The purpose of this Bill is a narrow one. We hope it will work. So far, nobody has shown that any other method would work. Criticism has been directed against this Measure on certain grounds, and I admit that it has its disadvantages, but nobody has put forward an alternative solution. It may be that this is a choice of evils.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: The hon. Member said that nobody has suggested an alternative. "The Times" contains a very interesting leading article this morning, the short purport of which is to say that we should make a great effort to arrive at a basis of current values, and cut out restrospection.

Mr. Marples: "The Times" also had a leader when we were on Second Reading, but it was misconceived. I agree that we should get on to current values as soon as possible, but it is not possible at present, because there is not a free market for current valus.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: There never has been.

Mr. Marples: It is a question of degree. In 1939 it was very much more free than it is now, although it was not free then. One thing is quite clear; it is not free now—it is worse.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: As a matter of fact, "The Times" went further. They said not only that current values should be taken, but actual values. In saying that they had no doubt been persuaded by me.

Mr. Dalton: The Parliamentary Secretary should read "The Times."

Mr. Marples: On this issue they misconceived the position. They have not always been sound on this question, or on the question of the new towns, as hon.

Members opposite pointed out in the Second Reading debate on the New Towns Bill, the Committee stage of which is following this Bill. If I say that they have erred on this occasion, I hope they will not hold it against me on the subject of the new towns.
I should like to reciprocate the reasoned speeches which the hon. Member for Sowerby made. When this Bill gets on to the Statute Book, I hope that a reasonable opportunity, free from criticism, will be given to the valuers, whose job is not easy. It was not easy to interpret the cost of construction method, which was laid upon the Inland Revenue by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). They performed a noble task on that occasion, and I would appeal to all hon. Members to give the valuers a fair crack of the whip and a chance to make their valuation before they are criticised.
It would only be fair for me to help the hon. Member for Sowerby, after he has been so good in helping the Government. With those words I commend this Bill to the House and end, as I began, by thanking hon. Members opposite for the kind way in which they have co-operated in the various stages of this Bill.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: I begin by saying how much we regret the circumstances which prevent the Minister from being here today. We were all glad to learn that he has had a successful operation and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish the Parliamentary Secretary to tell him, from us, that we hope the operation will be a complete success and that he will make a speedy recovery.
I was glad that the Parliamentary Secretary thought he could give us such a complimentary account of our behaviour. I am glad to have it on record that, at least on this occasion, we have been reasonable. I thought we were always reasonable, and that the trouble was that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite would not always listen, and it was the defect in hearing on their part which occasionally caused us to be a little troublesome when our good advice was not taken.
The hon. Member has told us that the main structure of the 1948 Act is unchanged. That is true. What we are concerned with here is the basis on which people are to pay rates. Although this matter has not excited very great interest so far, outside technical circles, I prophesy that it will excite much greater interest when the rates come to be levied, on the first lists. At the moment people do not appreciate what is involved. Only the valuers and technical people have so far exercised their minds about it.
In the Second Reading debate I made what I hope was a reasonable and very full case in favour of the Government giving us the fullest possible information, first, about the circumstances in which they had found that the provisions of the 1948 Act—Sections 74 to 82—were inadequate and, secondly, the circumstances in which, as far as they could tell, their proposals would operate.
It is true that the Minister gave us a little more information about the alleged failure of the provisions of the 1948 Act, but nobody could say that that information was adequate. Even if I give the Government the benefit of the doubt as to the provisions of the 1948 Act, I cannot give them any benefit of any doubt in respect of their own proposals. We are now reverting to the hypothetical tenant and, to boot, the hypothetical house.
Nothing that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister have said has dispelled in the slightest my anxieties about the proposals contained in Clause 2 of the Bill. We know that the Parliamentary Secretary has had the benefit of the preliminary valuations conducted by the valuers. He said so. In another connection there has been a row about that, but I am not concerned with whether the work should have been done; I am concerned solely with the fact that it was done. It was the basis upon which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary introduced the Bill, but neither on Second Reading nor in Committee, or now, have we had a single word to indicate what the likely consequences of valuation on this basis would be.
On certain occasions I have speculated a little, on the basis of such evidence as I can get—and, I think, on the whole fairly good evidence—about the likely consequences of valuation on these lists,

and I have been concerned, as have my hon. Friends, to try to obtain some safeguard. At one stage I hoped that we might find a safeguard by way of alterations in statutory reductions, and the right hon. Gentleman said he would bear the point in mind. I hoped it might be possible to have a gap between the publication of the list and the levying of the rate, but my new Clause on that point was out of order.
All my attempts to secure this safeguard have failed and I am left with a most uneasy feeling that there will be a change in the incidence of rates as between various classes of house property. That kind of thing will cause a lot of trouble, and I do not look with any equanimity on being a member of a future Government which might have to deal with this problem. Whether I were in office or the present Parliamentary Secretary were in office, as a Department we should have the most unholy trouble in front of us when the rates came to be levied on the new lists if those lists disturbed the incidence of the rate burden. It is because of that and not from any party interest that I have been primarily concerned to expound those anxieties and to try to get some assurances or safeguard.
I do not think I need say more. I do not think the Government have met us by giving us all the information they could have given. For that reason, and for the reason that we are extremely anxious, as we have been throughout, about the final results of the Bill, we shall feel bound to ask the House to divide against its Third Reading.

4.12 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: The right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) said that this Bill has not hitherto excited much anxiety in the public mind. He went on to predict that when the time came to levy the rate on the new valuation lists, the excitement likely to be aroused would be a great deal more serious. That is true. But if I recollect it correctly, the right hon. Gentleman advocated, both on Second Reading and in Committee, that valuation should be based upon current values.

Mr. Dalton: Agreeing with "The Times."

Sir G. Hutchinson: The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) confirms the impression which I got from his right hon. Friend and fortifies himself with "The Times," which is often a source of strength to him, although at times it proves to be a source of weakness.
What would happen if my right hon. Friend proposed to value dwelling-houses on current values? There is a scarcity factor at present. Suppose the valuers set to work to ascertain the rent which a tenant might be expected to pay for a dwelling-house at current values, with all the scarcity factors taken into account. I was glad to see the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) assent, by nodding, with this proposition a moment ago.
Suppose that had been done. The right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough said there would be an unholy row if the rate burden were disturbed by this Bill. Holy or unholy, the row would have been much greater if my right hon. Friend had accepted the suggestion that we should try to value dwelling-houses today upon current rental values.

Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. and learned Member correct in saying that this suggestion was originally made from this side of the House? It was, in fact, the view of his party in 1948 that the current value should be taken. The evidence on that point can be seen from the Standing Committee Report. Why have they changed their view?

Sir G. Hutchinson: I was not in the House in 1948—a temporary absence. If we have changed it—

Mr. Mitchison: I hope that if we are to consider what is not in the Bill, the hon. and learned Member will state the whole proposal. It was said that a considerable adjustment should be made to current values either before or after arriving at the gross rateable value.

Mr. Speaker: I must warn the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) against accepting the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), for that would be out of order.

Sir G. Hutchinson: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, although I would gladly have dealt with the point had I been in order in doing so.
The problem which confronted my right hon. Friend was to find a basis upon whch a new valuation list could be prepared. It is true that this Bill adopts one basis of valuation for one class of hereditament and a different basis of valuation for another class of hereditament. That can never be satisfactory. I think we all recognise the difficulty. But my right hon. Friend was driven to that decision. There is really no practical alternative to going back to 1939 values.
The Bill provides a temporary solution to this difficulty. I was glad that my right hon. Friend accepted an Amendment which I moved on behalf of a number of my hon. Friends in Committee which restricted the 1939 basis of valuation to the next valuation list and to that list only. When the new valuation list has been prepared and deposited, then the Government of the day will have to determine upon what basis subsequent valuation lists are to be made. If I may say so to the Parliamentary Secretary, the decision to accept that modification was a very wise decision.
The fact remains that although the Bill is not a satisfactory feature in some ways, the course which my right hon. Friend has taken was the only course open to him when we take into account such factors as rent control, decontrol, re-control and the general scarcity of dwelling-houses, together with all the other factors which affect residential hereditaments at present. If all those factors were taken into account, it would have been an impossible task to have attempted the valuation of dwelling-houses on current values.
Whether this Bill will produce a greater measure of uniformity than exists at present it is difficult to say. I do not share the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend for central valuation. I should have preferred to see the task of valuation go back to those authorities who performed it for so long. But there it is; my right hon. Friend has decided otherwise. I do not think there is any very marked lack of uniformity as between one hereditament and another in the same rating area or even as between one hereditament and


another in the same county. The serious lack of uniformity in valuation is not between hereditaments but between counties and county boroughs. There there is a very serious lack of uniformity.
It is not astonishing that that should be so, because when the Act of 1925 was passed it mattered very little whether there was uniformity between counties and county boroughs or not. That matter only became of primary importance when the Act of 1948 made the distribution of the Exchequer equalisation grant primarily dependent upon rateable value per head of the population.
It is this lack of uniformity in valuation between counties and county boroughs that is serious today and will continue to be serious until the new valuation lists are deposited. It may be then that we shall find that that lack of uniformity as between counties and county boroughs has been adjusted. I do not know. But, unless it is, it is clear that the working of the Exchequer equalisation grant can never be equitable. We have now got certain proposals for temporary adjustment of these difficulties.

Mr. Dalton: On a point of order. There is no provision in the Bill touching the Exchequer equalisation grant. If the whole subject is to be opened up there is much more to be said. I submit that the hon. and learned Gentleman is totally out of order.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. My attention was momentarily diverted, otherwise I would have checked the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir G. Hutchinson: The Bill deals with valuation. The distribution of the grant depends entirely on valuation. One of the grounds on which this Measure is commended to the House is that it will establish that degree of uniformity as between different rating areas which does not exist now and which is essential for the satisfactory working of the present system of distribution of the Exchequer equalisation grant.

Mr. Speaker: In so far as that is relevant it may be referred to. But if the fact that the grant depends upon valuation were to permit discussion of the Exchequer equalisation grant on this

Motion that would widen the scope of the debate enormously, because a lot of other things depend upon valuation in addition to the Exchequer equalisation grant.

Sir G. Hutchinson: This Bill is a temporary solution of the rating problem. It will be three years—1956—before the new valuation lists can be deposited. During that time my right hon. Friend has an opportunity to conduct what I believe is most urgently needed—an investigation into all these rating problems and the problems which have now become allied to rating. It is nearly 50 years since the final Report of the last Royal Commission on local taxation and expenditure was published. Since then the situation has completely changed. All these problems, though, in fact, separate, are really part of a general complex of interrelated problems none of which can be satisfactorily solved in isolation.
My right hon. Friend, or anybody who may find himself in his office in future, would be assisted in arriving at an acceptable solution of these problems if he was fortified, not only with the advice of "The Times"—and here "The Times" is on my side—but with the advice of a Royal Commission which has examined fully and comprehensively, in relation to one another, these difficult and complex problems.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I wish to express my regret that the Minister is unable to be here. I sincerely hope that he will soon recover his full health. We appreciated the good humour and charm with which he piloted the Bill through the Committee. I should like to repeat a comment I made on Second Reading, which was also made during the Committee stage. It is true that the difficulties of the valuer are great—they may or may not be improved by this Bill—but the difficulties of the ratepayer will undoubtedly be greater, especially the ones who wish to appeal.
I hope that the Minister will consider this matter. Some ratepayers will get nasty shocks when the new valuation lists are published. Those who wish to appeal will find themselves in great difficulty. I hope that some consideration will be given to removing some of the difficulties in the way of the ratepayer who wishes to appeal.
The Bill does not remove the existing lack of uniformity. I shall not discuss the Exchequer equalisation grant. I am thinking not only of the difference between one type of dwelling-house and another but also of the disparity between different classes of property—between dwelling-houses and industrial premises, agricultural land and agricultural property, and between premises which are derated and shops and offices which are not. It is difficult to see how this new system will work out, but it would appear that by comparison, the occupiers of shops and offices will come off worst of all—when the new valuation lists come out.
The maintenance of this illogical state of affairs can be justified only on the ground that it is temporary and that it is necessary to introduce this temporary Measure to enable valuation lists to be completed. I had intended, during the Committee stage, to move an Amendment to delete the words, "and subsequent lists." Unfortunately, I was unexpectedly in hospital. I was glad to see from the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that Members of the two major parties rushed to the support of the Liberal Party when this Amendment was called. I am pleased that the Amendment was accepted by the Minister, but the fact that the words "and subsequent lists" have been deleted and that the Bill now reads:
For the purpose of making or altering the first valuation lists made after the passing of this Act …
emphasises the temporary nature of this Measure. It is merely a stop-gap Measure. A case has been made out for it because the existing system has broken down. I believe that the Government have made out their case but this is only a temporary stop-gap.
I hope that the time that will be available before subsequent valuation lists are drawn up will be used in working out a radical reform of our rating system. It would scarcely be appropriate to enter into a discussion about the kind of reform which I think would be most fitting, but I would observe that we can never have a satisfactory system which is based on either real or estimated rental values. It would be far better to base our rating system on site values, and, indeed, we

now have an opportunity to consider the whole matter very carefully. It would be possible, before subsequent valuation lists are prepared, to introduce a new system of rating based on site values rather than on estimated rental values.
So long as rates are based on estimated or real rental values, it is inevitable that those who improve their properties will, sooner or later, be penalised by the fact that their rates will be increased since by improving their properties owners or occupiers increase the rental values. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity of considering the whole question of our rating system, and I sincerely hope that the passing of this Bill will not be regarded as an excuse for shelving a radical reform of an antiquated and illogical system.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: Surprise has been expressed from this side of the Chamber that so little interest has been taken in this Bill outside the House. That is an astonishing fact when one considers that practically every household in the country will be affected by its provisions, and many industrial premises. After all, the local authorities in England and Wales raise more than £300 million a year from local rates. We often spend much greater time and possibly express ourselves with much greater vigour on matters the financial consequence of which are not as great as in the case of this Measure.
I said on Second Reading that it was a little difficult to understand the almost unholy haste with which this Bill has been put through. It is quite clear that a remedy would have to be sought to the existing situation, but, in view of the difficulties that have continued since 1934, it would have seemed not unreasonable to have waited another six or nine months while the Minister and his officials studied the problem further and produced a more fundamental scheme. It seems to me, and, I think, to some of my hon. Friends, that the Minister has lost an opportunity of making a really important contribution to municipal finance.
We can at least hope that this Bill is a little better than it was originally, and some of us welcome the provisions made in connection with what the


Parliamentary Secretary called the "storage" Clause. There are nearly 8,000 of these adjuncts to hereditaments within the County of London alone, covering some 500 assessments, and the fact that they are now being included and fairly assessed is a very great improvement.
With regard to Clause 2, however, we must still express considerable doubt as to whether this return to 1939 values is not only fair, but whether, indeed, it is workable. I wish very briefly to repeat what was said by the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards). He said that we have had no evidence that 1939 values are to be a workable basis for assessment. Most of the technical evidence seems to be opposed to it. I shall not weary the House by repeating what I said in Committee upstairs on the view of the "Property Owners' Journal" on this point. The Minister has always seemed a bit vague himself concerning whether it would work. He said during the second day's Sitting of the Committee that it was up to the valuers. When I asked him about it, he said during the third Sitting of the Committee, that he had, perhaps, made the observation
in a somewhat frivolous way.
He then went on to say:
What I meant was that Ministers are but dim and transient phantoms who flit across the stage, and these men who are unhappy enough to have devoted their lives to valuing will have to carry out this work long after I have forgotten all about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 30th June, 1953; c. 113.]
One cannot help feeling that there was a certain sense of irresponsibility about this Bill as far as the Minister was concerned. Indeed, on one occasion he said that it was a great nuisance to have a Bill of this kind at all, and that he wanted to get on with other matters.

Mr. Houghton: I am sure that my hon. Friend has not overlooked the fact that the Minister is in the "Daily Mirror" gallup poll for the succession of the Premiership, and may have had that in mind when he was speaking.

Mr. Skeffington: Well, he talked about dim and transient phantoms which, of course, is a phrase capable of various interpretations and which, I am certain, would be out of order if I pursued them now.
I wish to refer to two other matters before I conclude. The first is one to which reference was also made by the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough and by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade)—the difficulty with which ratepayers will be faced when they want to contest the valuer's findings. Even with all the difficulties of the 1948 Act, people knew what the formula was. There was a certain definite measure of fact over which the dispute could range. But, by returning to 1939 values, it means that it is to be a valuer's opinion and guess work as against a ratepayer's opinion, and the facts may be extremely difficult or impossible to determine. I only hope that before the Bill becomes effective it may be possible to make public some of the instructions to valuers which the ordinary ratepayer can see so that he may have some idea how his rate will be assessed and how the valuer's interpretation of 1939 values is to be made.
The second matter to which I wish to refer is one which I raised both during the Second Reading debate and in Committee, when I ventured to give some of the figures which resulted from a very careful investigation into the Hayes and Harlington district to find out what would be the effect of returning to 1939 values. The figures which I then quoted seemed to indicate a very considerable shift in the basis of assessment. In other words, the domestic ratepayer in this type of district is to be asked to bear a greater share of the rate burden.
The Minister was good enough to say that he would look at them, and I have taken the opportunity of sending all the figures to the Parliamentary Secretary. It may be that we made some mistakes in our calculation, but, as Hayes and Harlington is a district composed very largely of new houses, I think that our valuations are likely to be right. It would appear that domestic properties are now to bear a greater share of the rate burden whereas industrial, commercial and licensed premises are all going to bear a lesser share. That seems to be a most extraordinary position.

Sir G. Hutchinson: Has the hon. Gentleman any data which would show the additional burden that would fall upon the domestic ratepayers if current values instead of 1939 values were used?

Mr. Skeffington: We have some evidence regarding that, although the analysis that we made was based on the present position which, of course, is based on the old pre-war 1925 Act; the valuation under the 1948 Act and the valuation under the present proposals. If we had current values, although there would be some shift in added burden upon the domestic ratepayer, there would be still more on commercial, industrial and licensed premises.

Sir G. Hutchinson: The hon. Gentleman does appreciate, does he not, that under the 1948 Act and under this Bill industrial and commercial hereditaments are valued at current values?

Mr. Skeffington: Yes, of course, but I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has got my point. What is to happen under this particular set of proposals is that the incidence of assessment will shift still further against the domestic ratepayer. The domestic ratepayer will be paying more than he would have done under the 1948 Act or than he does at the present time.

Sir G. Hutchinson: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. We are on Third Reading now.

Mr. Skeffington: I have given way on two occasions, and I think that in the interests of the House I ought to bring my remarks to an end. All I hope is that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to make some reference to this matter in his reply.

Mr. Marples: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I would remark that he was kind enough to send me a letter in which he emphasised his remarks in the Standing Committee. The conclusion which he drew about the effect of the Bill on his own constituency was not quite right. I did not think Third Reading was the time to give detailed reasons why he was wrong, and I shall, with his permission, write him a letter to show that it looks as though the rate burden on houses will be slightly reduced under the Bill from what it is today in Hayes and Harlington; but only slightly; not violently to cause suffering in other respects.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: A point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) is that we did a good job in the Standing Committee when we took steps to bring to the attention of the Government a difficulty which might otherwise have arisen over the pram sheds and storage sheds. I think all London Members will be grateful to the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) for having moved that Amendment. As he truthfully said, it is not only L.C.C. flats which will benefit, but Metropolitan borough council flats and possibly a number of private blocks of flats where there are these outlying buildings which might otherwise have had to be valued on a different basis.
However, the most important step we took in Committee was to delete words which would, in effect, have made this a permanent Measure. We now have the immense advantage on Third Reading of examining it purely as a temporary one, and all of us on both sides of the House must be a great deal happier about its provisions on that account. The existing situation which this Bill is designed to alter is, by almost universal consent, not wholly satisfactory, and yet few of us, surely, would suggest that the 1939 valuation for dwelling-houses introduced in this Bill is a remedy to which we ought to give any sort of permanent approval.
Quite frankly, I agree with the line that the Government have taken. I do not see any other practical alternative, but I am one of those who most sincerely hope that the 1939 basis will last for one valuation only, and that nothing will intervene, as events have intervened on previous occasions, to prevent us, after the next valuation, from passing legislation which will get the whole matter of valuation on to what I can only call a more realistic basis.
I disagreed profoundly with the hon. Member on the Liberal Bench, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), who seemed to maintain that an altogether greater degree of certainty would be introduced into valuation if the rating of site values were brought in. The truth is that in all these matters of valuation for rating purposes we are


inevitably moving in a somewhat conjectural field. That is one of the disadvantages of the whole rating system. It is having to carry an immense burden of local government finance now, and whereas in older and simpler days the burden could be managed, the possibilities of unfairness and uncertainty are now so great that one must feel much diffidence about continuing with the present rating arrangements as the sole basis for local government finance. Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson), I regret that neither this Government nor any previous Government since the war have taken steps to institute a thoroughgoing, objective inquiry into local government finance and the action which, I am quite certain, this House will have to take about that before many years are up.
I have indicated that I look upon this Bill purely as a temporary solution. I agree it is odd how little attention the provisions of the Bill seem so far to have attracted, outside the technical Press, even though a great many people are going to be affected by them. In my own contituency it is not so surprising as it may be elsewhere, because Hampstead Borough Council, all the time it was a rating authority, was more meticulous in enforcing accurately the provisions of the law than, I would venture to say, some other authorities have been in past years, which have tempered the wind considerably to their own ratepayers and by this means lessened the contribution that their local citizens have had to make to county funds. For that reason I do not regard this as a Bill that is going to make a fundamental change affecting my own constituents. It will make some drastic changes elsewhere.
I cannot at all follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington when he suggests that this Bill is going to shift the balance more against the occupier of the dwelling-house and in favour of the commercial occupier. It seems to me that the Bill is going to leave us with the next valuation definitely favouring the private house occupier as against the commercial occupier. But that is one of those difficulties from which there is no practical escape, because of the present artificial situation in the values of dwelling-houses, thanks, on the one hand, to the housing shortage, and, on the other,

to the operation of the Rent Restriction Acts. It is quite impossible under these artificial conditions to achieve a wholly fair basis for everybody.
I do not see any reason why the Government should be chid for having acted in any way hastily in introducing this Bill. I should have thought it was to everybody's advantage to have had a new basis for valuation on the Statute Book as soon as possible, so that present uncertainty could be brought to an end at an early date. I have no great liking for the provisions of this Bill, but I have heard nobody suggest better.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This Bill is a very poor thing but it may have very serious consequences. I hope that, although this is the Third Reading of the Bill, the House will give it the consideration it deserves and will not pass over lightly the serious defects which are prominent in it.
I notice that from each of the three speakers we have had from the Government benches including the Minister himself, we have had apologies for the Bill. Each of them felt he had to say that the Bill was imperfect and inadequate, and the Minister tried to console himself by saying that if it served any purpose at all, it was merely a narrow one. This is a piece of patchwork legislation. It has been brought in for the purpose of postponing urgent problems and, as an expedient, to try to dispose of the present very serious situation in regard to valuation for rating. It is, therefore, not surprising that it fails in its purpose. As the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) said, it is not a permanent Measure, and it is quite obvious from its contents that it is not going to be of service even as a temporary Measure, for reasons which I shall give.
I think that a good test of whether the Bill is a good or a bad one is the reaction to it from the local authorities. I believe that it is accurate to say that hardly any local authority welcomes this Bill and that practically every local authority has criticised it. The cool and chary response to it from that quarter may be no doubt to some extent due to the fact that the local authorities want to revert to the basic Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. They would like the system under that Act substantially restored. They also want to


see the derating provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, repealed. But these matters are not in order on the Third Reading of this Bill.
A very serious defect in the Bill is a matter which I put to the Minister earlier while he was moving an Amendment. That was the question of when the 1939 rateable values are to apply. This is very important if we are not to add many more difficulties to those we already have. It seems to me that the Bill as it stands means this: That all proposals for inclusion of new houses which come in before the new list is made are to be based upon the present rental values instead of on the 1939 rental values which it is the object of this Bill to secure, and that, therefore, for some time to come this particular remedy contained in the Bill, which has been put forward as urgent and necessary, will not apply. We shall have the alleged defects of the present system multiplying instead of getting rid of them.
It was obvious that the Minister saw that difficulty himself because he could not give a clear reply to the question I put to him on this point. In other words, instead of having a rental value basis as the Bill proposes, we shall have the cost basis which is operating at the present time. What makes it worse is that there is not even any certainty at all that the next quinquennial revaluation will not be postponed.
Therefore, if that occurred, the whole value of the Bill and of these proposed remedies in it, would be completely lost. The main object of the Bill, as the Minister said in the Committee Stage, is to get a fairer method of assessment. I have every sympathy with the Minister in that objective, but unfortunately each new change in the rating system, instead of getting rid of injustice, has only added to the injustice. The attempts which had been made to get uniformity have merely resulted in more non-uniformity, and that will again be the effect of this Bill. Not only are we not going to get uniformity here, but we are not even going to get any form of consistency.
This Bill will have precisely that defect because it provides the 1939 rental value as the basis for one type of hereditament and the current rental value as the basis for all other hereditaments. The Bill

provides no yardstick at all for uniformity. That is one of the fundamental criticisms of the Bill. If we are to have some basis of uniformity, it seems to me that the local one would be much better than the doubtful one which is in the Bill.
The Bill, in my submission, is vague and general, and it cannot possibly secure an equal or equitable measure of fairness in the system of valuation for rating. That is a very great defect in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister realises it. It was pretty obvious that he realised it when the Bill was in Committee. The Bill's general yardstick is absolutely useless. I put it to the Minister: How can he possibly say that the value of a house, for example, in Gloucester is necessarily going to be of the same value with an identical house in Manchester. It is impossible to say that. The same difficulty would apply if he were to value a cinema in Gloucester at X and say that it had the same value with an identical cinema in Manchester. He could not possibly say that those two cinemas necessarily had the same value for rating. That is one of the serious defects in this Bill.
I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) that it would be far better to judge this question of valuation by a local yardstick rather than by a general one. I have pointed out that as regards the 1925 Act uniformity failed there. In the 1948 Act the cost basis also failed, and now the Minister is asking the House to go back to the system applicable in 1938 which, he says, has also broken down. That is the melancholy situation created by this Bill.
The defects of the Bill are enormous, but I have not the time required to go into all of them. I should however like briefly to mention one or two of them. First, there is no clear system of safeguard under Clause 2 at all. When the Minister comes to reply I should like to hear him state any such system. He cannot do so. There is no safeguard that the 1939 rental value will be fair and workable. The Minister has in Committee admitted that there are disparities in the present rental value system, and it is clear that Clause 2 is not going to remedy that. There is no safeguard to relieve hardship in connection with the older houses, in which the Minister has admitted that the less prosperous people


reside. Clause 2 in no way ensures that increased assessments will be fairly borne between different classes of houses, and the Bill gives no remedy to ratepayers to make the valuation list equitable.
For those reasons and many others, which I hope will be mentioned by other hon. Members, I hope that the Opposition will divide against the Third Reading.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I hope the Minister will not regard what I have to say as too ungracious in view of the way he met the points that I made during the Committee stage. Although the Amendments made then considerably improve the Bill, the Bill does nothing to ease the problems which bother local authorities and local ratepayers.
I am glad that we have retained the central valuation system. If we had not done that, all hopes of anything approaching equity in valuation and assessment would have gone. But I am sure the valuers will have headaches when they are told to assume the 1939 rent—to assume that the present economic and social conditions existed in 1939—and then to determine what the rent should be in those circumstances. That system seems to contain as many difficulties as the one which is being discontinued.
Surely in any fair system rates ought to be levied on the principle of ability to pay. Those who are very poor ought not to be expected to pay as large a proportion of their small incomes in rate charges as those who are well off, but that is what will happen under the Bill. Under the old system, the burden of rate charges fell very much more heavily the poorer the man and his family were, and the Bill means that we shall return to that system. I do not like the Bill because the position of the poorer ratepayer will be worse.
As has already been said, the whole local government finance system should be looked at. There ought to be a full-scale inquiry. If present conditions continue for very many more years, local government finance will break down completely, and no one wants that to happen. I want local authorities to be given greater freedom to manage their own affairs, and I also want them to have greater freedom to raise their local income. I want that system to be fair to everybody, very much

fairer than any rating system that we have so far had.
Although it may not be in order on this Bill to make suggestions for completely new systems, we may note that in other parts of the world, and in parts of the British Commonwealth, rates are levied on site values. We should solve the financial problems of our local authorities if we got rid of the derating of industrial premises. It has been a curse to our local authorities. I am told that the borough which I represent loses £104,000 per year in income as a result of the derating of industrial premises. That is wrong. The borough has to spend the money, and this means that the income has to be raised from the poor devils who live in the small houses in the back streets. The Minister has chivvied us for not having proposed an alternative system. If it had been in order, some of us would have suggested alternatives.
The point has been made that we have not had full evidence to justify a change from the 1948 system. There is a complaint to be made about this. We have had a lot of figures, but they have not been given to us in the form of a White Paper so that we can study them. We have been told that the system of valuing on the basis of the cost price of building and the cost price of land has failed, but none of us has been convinced by the evidence produced, and we certainly have not had time thoroughly to digest it. Time after time during the course of the Bill we have asked for that information, but we have not had it.
On that basis alone, we are right to indicate our objection by voting against the Third Reading. I hope that in the near future we shall have a Government which will tackle the financial problems of our local authorities and bring about a radical reorganisation of their finances and our local government set-up as a whole.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I wish to register a mild protest about the amount of time which has been devoted to the Bill. We have had seven or eight days to discuss the Central African Territories and related matters, but this Bill, which affects every householder and every ratepayer in the country, has had only about five and three-quarter hours on Second Reading, and three-quarters of an


hour of that time was taken up by a couple of Scotsmen discussing English rating. If I intervene next week during the two days which have been allocated to the Scots. I hope that Mr. Speaker will not let any sense of tradition blind him to the fact that I have certain rights.
The Scots have departed from their usual parochial attitude and have taken a wider interest than that of their own country, but neither of the hon. Members who gave us the benefit of their gratuitous advice on Second Reading were members of the Standing Committee. The Scots often suggest that they are badly treated here, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has suggested that the two-day debate for the Scots next week should be held in Edinburgh. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am in order in saying that, generally speaking, it appears to be the English and not the Scots or the Africans who suffer in the allocation of time in this House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The allocation of time in this House does not appear in the Bill. It is a rating Bill.

Mr. Pannell: I hope I am allowed to reflect upon the attitude of the "usual channels" to the allocation of time, which, after all, reflects the importance of the Measures which come before the House. It appears that two days are necessary for Scotland, but only five and three-quarter hours on this Bill, during which two Scotsmen gave us the benefit of their advice for three-quarters of an hour, are considered good enough for the ratepayers of this country.
This Bill is an important one. It is not so dramatic as some other matters, but it will be dynamite when the new valuation takes place. Whenever revaluation has taken place in the past, despite all the speeches made on Second Reading, there has always been' a terrific scuffling and shuffling and much political, national and civic cowardice in facing up to the issues. As I have just heard an hon. Friend remark, it is cowardice all round.

Mr. Houghton: There is no cowardice among tax-gatherers.

Mr. Pannell: No, because a Minister is prepared to get up in this House and

defend his staff. I am not, however, going to go far into that question. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has just arrived. I may be tempted to go into the subject of driving tests, but I should certainly be out of order to raise that subject.
This Bill is one of those Bills about which we can talk very glibly, but it will be reflected in the local authorities' finances. This Bill retains the principle of central valuation, and here as a good local government man I want to say that I agree with that. But central valuation, when it was introduced, was an indictment of the local authorities themselves, as it revealed their complete failure and incapacity to deal properly with this matter. I see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) smiling, but he is looking at it from his lofty position as one of the vice-presidents of the Association of Municipal Corporations. I am speaking as a past chairman of a rating committee of one of those places like Hampstead, which has been referred to, that had the courage to levy a proper rate and has suffered a disadvantage thereby.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ilford, North said that the kernel of the problem is not valuation between county districts or counties but between counties and county boroughs. That is an under-statement. The kernel of the difficulty is between county borough and county borough and between county and county. It is no use talking about counties and county boroughs. What we have to face today is the difficulties meeting local authorities. I have had some experience of county valuations. We could not now take back the valuations from the central authority and give them to the local authorities. I remember when I was chairman of the valuation committee of the Walthamstow Borough Council—and that was 25 years ago—we carried out our rating duties in an exemplary manner, while in the borough of Ilford a few miles away they were very lax in this matter.

Sir G. Hutchinson: I do not know what the hon. Member knows about Ilford, but Ilford was always most careful to carry out the law, and I fear that we may have suffered for it since.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. and learned Member was never a member of Ilford


Borough Council, was he? What does he know about it? I am talking about the days when I was a hard-working local politician, and it was a fact that the difference between Walthamstow and Ilford was all the difference between good and evil.
In the old days there was considerable interference with local rating. There was what was known as sympathetic valuation, and all sorts of things cropped up. It was very difficult in the county to get an authority to make a proper valuation and so make its proper contribution to the county rate. It would have gone over to the Inland Revenue at some stage or the other, and it was handed over to the Board of Inland Revenue largely because of the proposed Exchequer grant.
I remember hearing Mr. Henry Willink, when he was Minister of Health, saying at a local government conference that the finances of local government at the outbreak of war amounted to about £600 million as a global figure, £200 million being from rates, £200 million from trading undertakings and £200 million from grants in aid. What we have now, and what is effected by this Bill, is a great shift all round. Many of the industries have been nationalised, which has affected the rates and the whole basis of subsidy. As a matter of fact, we have got to the ridiculous position that, by derating, the local authorities have lost about £60 million, while the national Revenue has secured £27 million in Income Tax.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member is now outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Pannell: With very great respect, I do not think so. As I understand the rules of order, on the Third Reading I can speak of anything that is in the Bill itself, and surely we cannot consider the question of rating of houses and garages apart from the general rating system. If I went into a specific question like the equalisation grant, which is an ancillary subject, I would be out of order. I think it is well to point out that it would give colour to the Bill if it were not for the fact that we have got this curious sort of business of a subsidy in reverse. While the local authorities lose £60 million, £27 million is paid to the Treasury which ought to be going into the revenues of local authorities themselves. But in view

of your warning, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will leave that subject alone.
What are the difficulties of the present rating system? Generally the amount paid is in the inverse ratio to the benefits received. Let me give an example. The highest sewerage rate in the country is at Burton-on-Trent, where it is three or four times higher than the average for the whole country. That is because there are so many brewery interests there, and this state of affairs arises through derating. That is why I say that the amount paid is the inverse ratio of the benefits received. The present rating system is based on an unfair and unscientific basis, the hypothetical rent paid for a certain hereditament, and to arrive at that figure we have to go back 15 years. The date in the Bill is the 30th June, 1939, and, of course, there is a different scheme for industrial hereditaments and shops. Because of that inconsistency, it cannot be said that the system is rational.
The present rating system has no regard to the income of the person who is liable for payment. Since 1830 the rating system has been based on property. In the 19th Century the type of house which a man lived in was, broadly speaking, a reasonable reflection of his wealth. Nowadays, people might prefer service flats, motor cars, and all sorts of other things to big houses, and the type of accommodation that a man occupies is, therefore, no longer a reflection of his ability to pay. A man who has a large family of children will be taking the children's allowances with one hand and paying it away in rates with the other hand.
Many people who vote do not pay rates. If they do, they do so only indirectly and with no conscious knowledge of the amount that they pay. When the basis of voting for local elections was altered, it was done on the basis of the enormous subsidies that go into local government, and that all paid taxes. In effect, the rating system is now no longer linked to people who are immediately interested in the figure of the rates.
Nobody can deny that administratively the rating system is shockingly clumsy compared with P.A.Y.E., which laps up the tax money each week from the man who works hard but allows the big Income Tax dodger to go free. The present rating system does not provide a uniform level of local government services


throughout the country, because the rating capacity of an area is subject to local economic disturbances, such as unemployment. No one can say that the present rating system can provide sufficient money for the present range of local government services without a wide variety of local government grants. Directly a central Government grant is given, the autonomy of the local authority is weakened. That is the difficulty that we are in.
I remember introducing a local authority Budget in 1938 for a small county district, which at that time controlled 54 per cent. of the expenditure on the rate demand. Eleven years later, my successor was levying a rate only 27 per cent. of which was controlled by the local authority. That loss of revenue and diminution of rate control indicates the rot that has set in with local government.
Government grants give a volume of administrative work both locally and nationally and lessen local freedom of action. The system by which the Government pay an increasing part of the burden by way of Government grant, while local authorities are denied the revenue to pay their own part, has resulted in an enormous increase in administration, notably among the white collar boys. Broadly speaking, the country must be built up economically by the people and the wealth that they produce. Every business efficiency expert would agree that the overhead expenses must be kept to a minimum.
What we want is a system which is economic in manpower and in collection. I shall vote against the Bill as a protest against its being merely another factor in the disarray of the design of local government which we have had twice before, and in the hope that before the next valuation a saner and more scientific system will have been introduced for the benefit of the ratepayers.
The Minister speaks about the reform of local government in 1955 or 1956. In effect, the whole of his philosophy is never to do anything today in local government if it can possibly be deferred until tomorrow. That is the sort of thing that we must protest against. The

rot set in some time ago, and radical reforming is needed, and this matter brooks no further delay.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) in his grand sweep across the economics, finances and complexities of local administration. I shall try to confine my remarks to the Bill, and to make them brief. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the compliment that he paid me in his opening speech. I do not seek to deny him any good natured glee that he may have derived from the embarrassment which he undoubtedly caused me. I have throughout consistently expressed my point of view on the Bill. I have declared my interest in the staff who are employed in connection with the valuation, and I hope that the House will bear with me while I make my concluding remarks on the Bill.
The first thing I want to say concerns a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) regarding the haste with which he suggested this new Measure had been brought forward. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that it is now 18 months at least since my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) suspended work on the valuation of dwelling-houses and switched the considerable staff employed on that job to the assessment of business and similar premises.
That work of assessment of business and similar premises is now far advanced. Were it not for the clearance which the Bill will give to further progress on the assessment of dwellinghouses, a wasteful period of inactivity would be confronting the valuation staff. My hon. Friend will, therefore, appreciate that to delay this Measure for another nine months would have been very uneconomic of the time and effort of a very large staff. Some 5,000 people in the valuation offices of the Inland Revenue are almost wholly engaged on this task.
Reference has been made to the lack of public interest in what the House is doing in the Bill. We can excuse the public for their inability to be interested in something which is rather shielded from them. The public do not know what the 1948 Act would have done to them, and they do not know what the Bill will do


to them. Our difficulty has been to disclose, for the information of all interested citizens, whether technical experts or ratepayers, precisely what we are having to discard, why we are having to discard it, what we are putting in its place, and what change we are bringing about.
The first thing in that connection which we must stress again and again is the change from local to central valuation, which the Bill retains. I am supported in graphic terms in this matter by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), to whom I would frequently go for doctrine, even if not for administration. In Standing Committee B, on 16th December, 1947, my right hon. Friend said:
As I tried to explain on Second Reading, in dealing with rating and valuation, especially of cottage property, we are not talking about objective, mathematical, dispassionate principles of valuation. Valuation is as much an art as a science, and we want to ensure that the same kind of artists are applying the same kind of criteria all over the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 16th December, 1947; c. 1725.]
Here we have it. We retain the central control and direction of the artists and, in this Bill, we replace the dual criteria for one criterion so far as valuation of dwelling-houses is concerned.
Some hon. Friends have criticised our return, as they put it, to pre-war values. We have never escaped from pre-war values in regard to the valuation of dwelling-houses. The only single particular in which Part IV of the 1948 Act departed from pre-war values, whether of costs, hypothetical costs, building costs, or site values, was in regard to the hypothetical value of the post-1918 local authority house. All the rest, the hypothetical cost of construction and the hypothetical site value were related to pre-war prices. The basis of valuation of the pre-1918 house was related to the prevailing level of pre-war rents. We have never escaped from pre-war values; therefore there can be no going back to something we have never left.
It is true that we have altered the basis of pre-war valuations for the purposes of this Bill, but the only current values in the whole structure of valuation under the 1948 Act was the valuation of business and similar premises, and this Bill does nothing to disturb that. An hon. Member opposite referred to shocks which people would get, but there

will be more shocks under the 1948 Act, which still retains the 1925 basis of valuation of business premises, than shocks for the occupiers of dwelling-houses.

Mr. J. Edwards: May I ask how my hon. Friend knows that?—perhaps he will give us some figures.

Mr. Dalton: There are no figures from the Government, perhaps my hon. Friend can help us.

Mr. Houghton: The one criticism I have to make of the Government in this matter is that they have not given the House the benefit of the abundant material at their disposal to prove their case absolutely up to the hilt. They have not been doing these pilot surveys for all this time without having gathered a very substantial body of evidence, of which we have seen only the smallest sample. My right hon. Friend asks how I know—there is a simple test to apply. The valuation of business and similar premises on current values under the 1925 Act in the hands of Inland Revenue valuers means current values. Any occupier of business or similar premises who likes to make a comparison between his rate demand note and the rent he is paying will see the sort of shock that is coming to him. We need not put it any differently from that.
Valuers will be assessing premises on the current values and the index to current values will be current rents. There is no mystery about that; one does not need to have inside information to be able to tell the business community what sort of change is coming to them on the current value for rates. But when hon. Members see a shift of the emphasis of the rate burden from business premises to the occupiers of dwelling-houses, I say that there is nothing of the sort in the Bill. It follows from the fact that we are retaining prewar valuation for dwelling-houses as against current values for business premises that the shift is going to be all in the other direction, which I think will make for greater equity in the distribution of the rate burden. At present the occupier of a dwelling-house is bearing a disproportionate share of the rate burden because the assessments of business premises have not been brought up to date. I do hope we shall get this into its proper perspective.
Some reference has been made to a leading article in "The Times" this morning. I read "The Times" every morning and, like my hon. and right hon. Friends, I agree with it when it suits me and disagree with it when it does not. But who has ever said that "The Times" newspaper is an authority on rating? Since when have they qualified to pontificate to the world about the basis of valuation? I know that they hanker, as we all hanker, after putting the valuations on a more realistic and more up-to-date basis. But I pose the simple question without going into a lot of technical detail, what would be the basis of valuation of an owner-occupied house today if we applied current values? Would it be the controlled rent of the house next door, or the uncontrolled rent of the house next door but one? That is the sort of question which obviously would send us into hypothetical values or into averaging out values, if we were to take current values as the basis of valuation.
We come to the stage when we part with the Bill with all its imperfections and possibilities of trouble for the future. I said in the very short intervention I made on Second Reading that this was not a perfect solution, nor did I think it could be a lasting solution to the problem. The change we have made during the Committee stage upstairs by deleting the words, "in subsequent lists" emphasises the fact that, after the first lists come out, we can all take fresh stock of what we have done and see whether we have a workable basis or not.
That, I think, will have to satisfy all reasonable people on a Bill which, I agree, the Minister had to introduce because of the problems he encountered and which my right hon. Friend encountered in the operation of the 1948 Act.
If there is anyone who can make a good workable job of this difficult task I think the valuation staff of the Inland Revenue will do it. At least they will try very hard to produce a satisfactory solution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Since that is likely to be the only applause I shall get from the benches on this side of the House, I think the time has come to conclude my speech.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I think it would be very unfortunate if the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) were the final contribution on the Bill from this side of the House. I do not mind my hon. Friend supporting the somewhat wavering flanks of the Parliamentary Secretary, but what I do not like is the great enthusiasm and pleasure he gets from doing so.
I wish my hon. Friend had addressed himself a little more carefully in Committee and in the debate today to the real gravamen of the criticisms made in considerable detail from this side of the House on the Bill and what it sets out to do. It is all very well for him to laugh at "The Times" and those of us who are laymen, and ask what we know of valuation. Our job is to know what should be done.
We can only do that on the basis of information but neither my right hon. Friend nor the Parliamentary Secretary has given that information and we cannot make an evaluation of the difficulties and the best way of dealing with them without information. The only specific piece of information about valuation which we have been given by the Parliamentary Secretary is that the 1948 Act produced a fairly coherent system within the class of the houses it deals with. That is the only consistent thing there is over this whole field, the rest of it having been distorted on entirely subjective and political grounds.
My hon. Friend has given the impression that this Bill is something going back to a clearly defined thing called 1939 values, something which people will understand. But that is not the case. The Bill cannot go back to 1939 values because it would be quite anomalous. In two substantial respects it has introduced a quite arbitrary conception, in the case of the newly developed area and the idea of a hypothetical town existing in 1953 which did not exist in 1939. It is nonsense to say to the unfortunate ratepayer who wishes to understand on what basis he is rated that he will be able to look at the rent book and find the answer. He will have to look back, make a comparison with 1939 and, it may be, see who was his


next-door neighbour, That is not valuation, it is crystal gazing. It is a guess at the answer.
The other material factor introduced into the Bill in Committee and which causes distortion is this adjustment of scarcity value. An adjustment has to be made on the 1939 figures to see what they would have been had there been a scarcity value due to the existence of rent control on other houses. If the House finds this difficult to understand I do not think that is my fault, for it is an exceedingly incomprehensible subsection.
Our complaint is if all these subjective, arbitrary variations are to be introduced why should not the Government pluck up courage and make the whole basis that of current values, with the various qualifications which have to be made in any case. That would be somewhere near achieving uniformity of values for all types of hereditaments with a reasonable chance of carrying them on in the future.
How far are the figures coming forward due to valuation being carried out centrally? Whatever system of valuation has been introduced, the change from local to central valuation was bound to introduce anomalies and a sense of annoyance among ratepayers who are badly hit. However right the system may be, once adjustments are made from local to central valuation there are bound to be complaints from people who say that their houses previously had a low valuation

and now have a high one, because instead of there being a quiet local assessment committee there are now the valuers from the Inland Revenue. How far that causes trouble is one of the things that the experts have not bothered to tell us.

Sooner or later we have to bring valuation up to current values; we cannot go on indefinitely anchoring them to 1939. At some time we must face these problems. What went wrong with the 1948 Measure was the assumption that 1948 post-war values were temporary and that we should get somewhere between them and the pre-war level. Now we know that is not so. We have a permanent and completely new scale of values and sooner or later we have to bring local taxation up to those values. That is bound to present an extremely difficult problem.

Instead of facing up to the problem the Government have tried to compromise. They have introduced a completely individual personal assessment of value instead of something which is clear and easily understood. It will cause a sense of injustice among ratepayers, who will feel that they have been valued not on something which can be measured, but on something which exists only in the inflamed imaginations of Inland Revenue valuers.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 162.

Division No. 220.]
AVES
[5.46 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Butler, Rt. Hon R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Campbell, Sir David
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Carr, Robert
Fell, A.


Arbuthnot, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Channon, H.
Fisher, Nigel


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Banks, Col. C.
Colegate, W. A.
Fort, R.


Barber, Anthony
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Baxter, A. B.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. D. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crouch, R. F.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Grimond, J,


Bishop, F. P.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Black, C. W.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Donner, Sir P. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Brooman-White, R. C.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Heath, Edward


Bullard, D. G.
Drewe, Sir C.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon Sir T. (Richmond)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)




Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott, R. Donald


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marples, A. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hollis, M. C.
Maude, Angus
Snadden, W. McN.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Maudling, R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hope, Lord John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Medlicott, Brig. F
Stevens, G. P.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mellor, Sir John
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Storey, S.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Neave, A. M. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E' b'rgh. W.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Studholme, H. G.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Summers, G. S.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nutting, Anthony
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Kaberry, D.
Oakshott, H. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Keeling, Sir Edward
O' Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Kerr, H. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Lambton, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Law, Rt. Han. R. K.
Partridge, E.
Wade, D. W.


Leather, E. H. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. Marylebone)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Linslead, Sir H. N.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pitman, I. J.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wellwood, W.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. D. L
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Longden, Gilbert
Raikes, Sir Victor
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


McCallum, Major D.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wills, G.


McKibbin, A. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)



Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Roper, Sir Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maclean, Fitzroy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Mr. Vosper and


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Russell, R. S.
Mr. Richard Thompson.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.





NOES


Albu, A. H.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Follick, M.
McLeavy, F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Foot, M. M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Awbery, S. S.
Gailskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Manuel, A. C.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bartley, P.
Glanville, James
Mayhew, C. P.


Bence, C. R.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Grey, C. F.
Messer, Sir F.


Benson, G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R


Beswick, F
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Moody, A. S


Bing, G. H. C.
Hannan, W.
Morley, R.


Blackburn, F.
Hargreaves, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, S.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moyle, A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hastings, S.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Boardman, H.
Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Oliver, G. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oswald, T.


Brockway, A. F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holman, P.
Pannell, Charles


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hoy, J. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hubbard, T. F.
Parker, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Clunie, J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Proctor, W. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Daines, P.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reeves, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Keenan, W.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dodds, N. N.
King, Dr. H. M
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, Arthur
Short, E. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lingren, G. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, J.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)







Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thornton, E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Smith. Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Tomney, F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Weitzman, D.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Sparks, J. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Steele, T.
Wheatley, Rt Hon. John
Wyatt, W. L.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Yates, V. F.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Younger, Rt Hon K


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W



Sylvester, G. O.
Wigg, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wilkins, W. A
Mr. Wallace and


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Willey, F. T.
Mr. John Taylor.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

NEW TOWNS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of advances which may be made to development corporations under section twelve of the New Towns Act, 1946, it is expedient to authorise any increase, attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session raising to one hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred million pounds imposed in respect of such advances by subsection (1) of the said section twelve (as amended by the New Towns Act, 1952), in the sums which, under or by virtue of the said Act of 1946 or section two of the Licensed Premises in New Towns Act, 1952, are to be or may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, raised by borrowing, remitted or paid into the Exchequer.
Resolution agreed to.

NEW TOWNS BILL

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

5.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I should not like the Third Reading stage of this Bill to go by without saying a few words, and giving the House some account of the progress made last month, because, in this Bill, we are asking for a large sum of money, and I think the House would be interested to know of the progress made. Since I spoke on Tuesday last week, the results for last month have come in, and they show that 626 more houses have been completed, one further factory of 12,580 square feet at Harlow, and one more church at Hemel Hempstead.

Since the previous occasion on which I spoke, I have also taken the opportunity to visit Newton Aycliffe, one of the new towns in the North-East, where a very charming and enthusiastic band of people who are running the new town showed me what they had done. I am now able to answer a query by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) which I could not answer on the occasion of the Second Reading debate. The right hon. Gentleman asked me how the supply of public houses was progressing in Newton Aycliffe and Peterlee. I cannot tell him about Peterlee, because I did not visit it, but in Newton Aycliffe they have got up to ground floor level with a public-house which they are erecting there. The cellarage was complete, and I inspected it most carefully, because I am anxious to see that the alcohol sold there is of a reasonably high standard.

Mr. James Hudson: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by a high standard?

Mr. Marples: A standard which would be approved by most hon. Members of this House, excepting, of course, the hon. Gentleman.
They have also decided what they will call the public house, and I was told that it is to be named "The Iron Horse." I wondered why this name was chosen, and I asked if it was possibly named after the very determined character of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, but apparently that is not so. It has been called after the second locomotive which pulled the first passenger train past the site of the new town, and a model of the original engine is being placed on top of the building. The site, in fact, is a rather unfortunate place, but I will not go into that now, though we may take the matter up with the Corporation. It is certainly not in the best of places.
In addition, there are 666 more houses under construction, four more factories—

Mr. J. Hudson: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a further question about "The Iron Horse "? Did he see any of the arrangements that were decided upon by this House that there should be places where there would be no alcoholic liquor sold at all?

Mr. Marples: No, I did not make that inquiry.

Mr. Hudson: What a pity.

Mr. Marples: There are four more factories, covering 55,600 square feet, under construction, five more shops and one community centre also under construction at Harlow. Since the House is interested in schools, I can say that three more schools and one technical college have been begun—one school at Harlow, two at Peterlee and the technical college at Peterlee as well. As we were making good progress I thought the House would pardon a short intervention by me to give them a report.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: We are very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for telling us the position up to the minute. I hope that his Department will press on with the construction of community buildings of all kinds. We are glad to hear of progress that has been made here and there, but there is great danger to the contentment of the people in the new towns unless they get a much larger number of community buildings of one sort or another established very soon. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can assure us that his Department will have that point well in mind.

Mr. Marples: indicated assent.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: A question which I put to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in an earlier debate did not receive a complete answer, and I should like to raise the point again at this stage. The Government made it clear in the opening debate on the Bill that they were determined to develop the new towns as balanced communities.
I put to my right hon. and gallant Friend the question what the Government would do if they were unable to get all the industry to the new towns that they would like, and whether, when housebuilding had reached the extent required by the available industry, it would stop, and the effort would be concentrated in the expanding towns.
By way of reply I was advised by my right hon. and gallant Friend not to be too despondent about the prospect of the new town in which I was particularly interested, namely East Kilbride. But I have since found, in conversation with other hon. Members who also represent constituencies with new towns in them, that the failure to give me a reply has caused anxiety. Without wishing to delay the House unduly I would repeat my question, in the confidence that in due course a full and satisfactory answer will be forthcoming.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Græme Finlay: Another issue was also raised in the Second Reading debate to which we have not yet had a satisfactory reply. In speeches by hon. Members who are associated with new towns I thought there was a great deal of doubt whether the principal object of the new towns, that is to say the decongestion of the Metropolis, was being effected. It emerged that a kind of Box-and-Cox game takes place, and that when industries are evacuated to the new towns they are immediately replaced by other industries. That affects directly the principle of the new towns, and I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend are considering the matter very deeply. We should like to have an indication of the steps which are to be taken to deal with this very serious matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are we to have a progress report for Scotland, similar to that given for England? Why should we not have a similar report about the number of churches, public houses and buildings going up in Scotland? Two Ministers present are responsible for Scottish affairs. Housing is just as important in Scotland as it is in England, and I hope that we shall have a progress report.

6.6 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): If the hon. Gentleman will consult the latest returns in relation to Scottish housing he will find all the figures enumerated there. To my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) I have already given a full answer to the question which he raised. Matters are proceeding very satisfactorily at the moment, and we need not look upon the prospect with dismal forebodings.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Before the Joint Under-Secretary of State sits down, will he say whether the figures to which he referred make a distinction between the new towns and other towns? Is the distinction made in that way about housing development?

Commander Galbraith: The figures for various towns are given.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman reminded my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that if he would look in a certain direction we would get the information. Can my hon. Friend get the information that he wants, which is the development of housing in the new towns in Scotland?

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Further to what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said, may I ask him, since I may not have explained my question clearly, whether it is Government policy, in pursuance of the aim of an evenly-balanced community, to keep housebuilding equal with factory building?

The Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): That point does not arise on the Bill, which simply asks for an increase in the amount of the money advanced.

Mr. Maitland: Is this not a debate on new towns, and is one not entitled to ask a question about new towns?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Bill only asks for an increased amount of money. It was the original Act which gave the authority for the new towns.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: It is true that the Bill only asks for more money, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who represents the English side of

this matter, gave a pretty comprehensive report about what was happening. My hon. Friend asked whether we could have a similar statement in regard to the new towns in Scotland. The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that there has been criticism of the building taking place in these areas and that only this week, in evidence before the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, a witness raised points with regard to the building of churches in the Scottish new towns.
The Minister might take advantage of this occasion to say something about development in the new areas. The point has been raised acutely in connection with the problem of providing employment in the new towns for the families of miners who go there to work. I hope it is not asking the Minister too much for him to say whether it is the Government's intention to link up the Scottish new towns with the other side of the Forth by means of a Forth road bridge.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I am sure that the House will welcome the passing of the Bill and the granting of an additional £50 million for the development work carried on by the development corporations. This money is not to be used wholly for housing development. It will be largely used for that purpose, but it is intended to cover industrial development as well. Probably the Parliamentary Secretary will not be able to give us the information now, but it would be useful if he could at some time indicate the probable proportioning of the £50 million between housing development and industrial development. We have not had the information, and we are left in the dark to some extent as to what division is being made between housing construction and industrial construction.
I ask him to consider another matter. This additional £50 million, indeed the whole of the money granted to the development corporations, will be advanced at a rate of interest paid by the corporations. In recent months, a great deal of confusion has arisen from variation in the interest rates charged. The corporations, in the middle of partially developed draft schemes, before even they have sought approval for the development scheme, must take into consideration the financial implications of the development


of that scheme and the rate of interest chargeable, which is a very important matter.
If half way through the development of the scheme they find that the rate of interest goes up, it completely throws out of balance the financing of the whole scheme. An industrialist may be prepared to come to a new town and take a factory at an agreed rent, and then the development corporation may find itself faced with increased interest charges and financially deficient to develop its scheme, in which case it would have to go to the industrialist and say, "When we started, we thought that the figure quoted to you as the rent of the factory was the correct figure, but now that the interest rates have gone up we shall have to ask you to pay a higher rent."
I am quite sure that a number of developments have fallen through because of the change in the financing of them as a result of unexpected changes in the interest rate. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that his Department should consider this very important principle, and that when a development corporation submits a development scheme to the Minister and he approves it—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is a very simple Bill asking for an increase of £50 million. The principle has already been agreed to.

Mr. Sparks: Yes, but if I may say so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, before this £50 million can be spent it has to be submitted in the form of development schemes to the Minister for his approval. It is not automatically handed to the development corporations with instructions to spend it. Before it can be spent, the Minister has to approve development schemes incurring the expenditure of the money.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is done under the New Towns Act, 1946, as amended by the New Towns Act, 1952, but that has already been agreed to by the House.

Mr. Sparks: I must, of course, be guided by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I shall not enlarge on the point any further. However, I can assure the House and the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a matter which is causing

some difficulty to the development corporations in carrying out their work. If it is possible for the Minister, under existing legislation, to fix the rate of interest to be charged for the loan to be advanced when he approves the development scheme, it would greatly assist the development corporations in carrying out their work and in spending this extra money to the best advantage of all concerned.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order. I must try and get the Scottish position clear. I am assuming, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that some of this money will go to Scotland and Wales as well as to England. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said something about the North-East, but he was very uncommunicative even about that. There is a new town in South Wales, but we have had nobody from the office of the Home Department and Welsh Affairs to say a word about it.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has refused point blank to give any information to this House today. Indeed, he was rather rude to this House when he suggested that we should look elsewhere for information which, in our opinion, we are entitled to have when a matter of this sort is placed before us. I think, therefore, that we should have an explanation both from the office of the Home Department and Welsh Affairs and from the Scottish Office as to why they have not given the House more information.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised questions as a point of order, and my answer to him is that if anybody tried to answer his points they would be out of order.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The material point in the Bill with which we have to deal is that the sum is being increased from £100 million to £150 million. Of course, as Scotsmen, we immediately want to know what proportion we are going to get of that £150 million. How is it to be apportioned? Are we going to have the Goschen formula again, or is the division of the money to be in the same ratio as the Exchequer equalisation grant as between Wales and Scotland, and so on? I join


with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) in asking that we may have a fuller statement from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
A second point that requires clarification is the relation of the Government's policy to increased costs to local authorities generally, and to new towns in particular, where there has been a special urge to build new houses, etc. If the Government's policy has increased interest charges, is it because of that policy that they are now having to bring in this Bill and to ask for more money in order to keep the work turning over in these new towns? That is a most material point.
I want to know whether, in connection with the development of these new towns, the Government have been giving any advice to the corporations in regard to, say, East Kilbride. Can the Minister say what proportion of the building operations there have been carried out by direct labour as against contract work?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is completely out of order on this Motion. I really will not allow the Minister to answer that question. This is a very simple Bill, and we cannot go into these details.

Mr. Manuel: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in every way, but I thought that, as we were dealing with an increase in the sum from £100 million to £150 million, I should be in order if I could prove that if this building operation were done by direct labour the extra money would not be needed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I think that would have been in order when we were passing Section 12 of the New Towns Act, 1946, but it is not in order now.

Mr. Manuel: I am sorry that I cannot pursue the matter further, but I hope that, while keeping in order, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will voluntarily give us all the help he can concerning the questions which we are posing to him.

6.19 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: With permission, and in view of the great interest displayed not only by Scottish, but by

English and Welsh Members also, in the manner in which we are going ahead with our new towns in Scotland, perhaps I may be allowed to give the House the latest information available to me and which, fortunately, I have beside me. In East Kilbride, the expenditure has amounted to £3,132,000, and in Glenrothes to £1,302,000, a total expenditure of £4,434,000. In addition to that, money committed but not actually spent on East Kilbride amounts to £1,829,000, and on Glenrothes to £947,000, a total of £2,776,000, so that the total, both planned and committed, is £7,210,000. I hope that that is satisfactory.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is not what we asked for.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member has already spoken on this point.

Mr. Hughes: If I may have the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, might I ask whether the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland could not have made a similar statement with respect to Scotland? In the first place he gave us certain statistics, and then he decided that we were entitled to a further explanation, but he did not give us anything like the graphic explanation which was given by the Minister responsible for the English Department.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PLOUGHING GRANTS

6.21 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
Substantially this Scheme contains the same conditions as the second Scheme which came to an end on 31st May. There are three small differences to which I should call attention. There are two small alterations in Part I of the Scheme. One occurs in paragraph 3 (1) which gives the Minister power to agree to a summer fallow in suitable cases. That is to say, that the ploughing can be done in one year and the sowing in the next.
The other small alteration is to tighten up conditions slightly where re-seeding is to be allowed, and that is done by excluding from the meaning of crops a fodder crop which has been under-sown with grass-seeds. The other small Amendment is in Part II of the Scheme in paragraph 7, which slightly widens the Minister's power to make grants before the crop is finally sown under the £10 an acre grant. Otherwise the Scheme is the same as the one that has been running in the previous 12 months.
I should just say a few words about the operation of the Scheme in the past 12 months. I think the House would wish to know how it has been working. I am not able to give precise figures as to the working of Part I of the Scheme until we have seen the collation of the agricultural returns for 4th June, and that will not be for another two or three weeks, so that I am not able to give an exact figure for the present tillage acreage and, therefore, the net increase that may have occurred over the past 12 months. I can only say that the indications from the 4th March returns of farmers' crops forecast are that there will be some increase in tillage in spite of the fact that we have lost some 60,000 acres this year from the flooded area on the East Coast.
Part II of the Scheme is working satisfactorily. It began on 1st August last year and, therefore, has had only 10 months to run. We have in England and Wales an increase of 64,000 acres under the £10 an acre part of the Scheme and a further 1,500 acres in Northern Ireland. I am hopeful that if this Scheme is continued for an further 12 months we may very well achieve some further 50,000 to 100,000 acres.
I think it is fair to say that that is a complete net gain in tillage acreage and, broadly speaking, in food production. Much of that land is doing little or nothing now. A good deal of it consists of outworn derelict orchards and so on, which without this assistance would not be brought into cultivation, and which, once brought into cultivation, is very rich land and, therefore, is a thoroughly good proposition from the point of view of the nation generally and the farmer in particular. It seems that this innovation, as it was last year, of the £10 an acre grant for land which had been under

grass since 1939 has proved to be a useful practical measure. That gives a brief report on how the Scheme has been working.
I think it is fair to say that these ploughing grants are proving a very valuable assistance to us not only in maintaining tillage acreage but in continuing to get some increase. It is fair to judge this achievement against the background of the downward trend in tillage which began in 1948, and continued in 1949 and 1950 until in 1951 the trough of the downward trend occurred with a loss of something like I million acres in the United Kingdom in those years.
I think we can credit this ploughing Scheme which was started at the beginning of 1952 by my right hon. Friend with the main part of the success in arresting this downward trend and in securing again this continuing upward trend in tillage acreage. I therefore ask the House with confidence to approve this Scheme to enable us to continue these ploughing grants for a further twelve months.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: We did not oppose the Measure under which these Schemes have been made. We do not, in fact, propose today to oppose this Scheme, but there are one or two points which I have to put and I hope that we shall get a reply before we part with another of these Schemes under the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act.
The Minister said—and I did not quite follow him—that the addition to Paragraph 3 (1) was to enable in certain cases a summer fallow to intervene between the actual ploughing and the cropping. I wonder in this connection what are those circumstances. Can he give us any idea of the sort of circumstances the Minister had in mind when he included this addition in his Scheme. I wonder, too, if there are any cases in which this alteration might not apply to Part II of the Scheme. Would the words which he has inserted in Paragraph 3 (1), in fact, cover anything that might happen under Part II of the Scheme if he thought it desirable in those circumstances to have a summer fallow and possibly the same sort of cropping as he is thinking of in connection with Part I of the Scheme?
The Minister has told us that there have been certain increases in tillage and, of course, we welcome them. They make for better farming and better production on our land, and we certainly welcome that. I can understand his difficulty in providing at this time figures of increase which would have been very helpful to us in connection with this Scheme, but realising that we have not yet got to the time when those figures are available, we have to take his word for it that there have been some increases and that these increases are a continuation of those which we saw in the previous year.
We ought to know what is the total cost of the grant under the 1952 Scheme before we part with the 1953 Scheme. The Minister will remember that under the original Price Review, which set in Motion this train of production grants, we were told that there was likely to be a figure of some £3·4 million per annum spent upon this part of the production grants subsidy. We were told that under the Ploughing Grants Scheme a total of £3·4 million would be spent annually, and that sum would be deducted from the amounts which were to be paid to the farmers as a result of the increases in the cost of production. We ought to know if the £3·4 million has been exceeded and, if it has, how this was taken into consideration in the Review of 1953. We should also like to know whether these grants are still being paid out of the farmers' pockets and not out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
The Minister has told us that we have had a number of additional acres. I wonder whether he or his Department have reckoned up the cost of those additional acres in subsidy payments? What is the cost per acre of this addition to tillage? I know that other figures come into the reckoning, but when one isolates the figure for the increase in the amount of tillage and compares it with the amount of money paid out per acre, the increase appears to be a figure which neither the Minister nor anyone else can justify, unless there is something else which must be taken into consideration. The amount of the increase, when reckoned in connection with the money paid out for each additional acre ploughed, appears to be a staggering figure. I hope that the Minister can tell

us something about this, and can also justify the fact that the money has been spent in this way.
There is one other aspect of this matter which should be cleared up. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture today, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), told us that agriculture was moving into a freer economy and that he was in the process of setting the industry and the country free. Those words appealed to the hon. Member for Orpington, who so often represents advanced Tory thought on this matter.
If we are moving into this very free economy, it is right that we should know what place a production grant and a subsidy should have in that free economy. If we are to have this freedom; if the market is to be freed so that the farmer can go there and get the best price he can—and it may be that he will get a higher price in a free market—how can there be any justification for a production grant in addition to the free market price that he will get?
In the Review of 1952, the Minister said that he was thinking in terms of the increase due to the farmer as a result of his increased production costs being paid to him in two ways. One was by increasing his end-price and the other by giving him, instead, some form of a production grant as a stimulus to production. If there were justification for that in circumstances in which the price which the farmer got was controlled, there would appear to be not the slightest justification for it in circumstances in which the market might be absolutely free. It is possible that the farmer would receive something very much in excess of the price which he would have got if the Ministry of Food were purchasing the cereals from the farmers.
The date fixed for the derationing of feedingstuffs is 1st August. I understand that controls on the price of cereals will be removed by the next harvest and, although no final decision has yet been taken as to the method to be employed in giving effect to the price of market guarantees under the 1947 Act when the decontrol of cereal takes place, if, as appears likely, the decision is in favour of a support price scheme, or some form of deficiency payment, the position might arise in which the farmer would receive


a market price higher than the support price and, on top of that, a production grant in the form of a ploughing, fertiliser, or calf subsidy.
If that position arises, the farmer will win both on the swings and on the roundabouts. We want to give the farmer a square deal. We did so when we were sitting on that side of the House; the 1947 Act is evidence of that fact; but we do not want to exceed a reasonable return to the farmer for his product. We do not want the position to arise in which these production grants will be allowed, not as a deduction from the end-price to the farmer but from the taxpayer's pocket. That would be an unjustifiable payment to the farmer.
These are some of the questions which are worrying some of my hon. Friends at the moment. It is quite obvious that people who know something about the industry are worrying about what is to happen when we move from the present position into a freer economy, where, if the Ministry is not very careful, the farmer will be given this quite unjustifiable double payment. Before we part with this Scheme, I hope that we shall have a reply to the points which I have raised. If the reply is satisfactory we shall not divide against this Scheme. As I say, we passed the first Scheme under the Ploughing Grants Act, 1952, but at that time the circumstances were entirely different. Knowing the Minister, I expect that he will be able to supply us with some answers which we shall at least consider sympathetically.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I have never liked this Ploughing Grants Scheme. I did not like it when it was introduced by the Labour Government, and I do not like it now—I have always believed in the principles of the 1947 Act—and I am getting more and more doubtful whether the Government do. It is a question upon which the farmer and the community require some reassurance. The principle of the 1947 Act is that farm production shall be on a contract basis, that the price of the contract shall be fixed each March, and that that price shall be such as to call for the production required.
If, instead of having a price that will call for the production which is required,

we proceed to have a price lower than that which is necessary, and our short-fall in price is made up by a random system of subsidies, the whole contract scheme will begin to topple. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food made some observations with regard to the freeing of meat. I am not saying that that Minister is a particularly responsible spokesman. He does not carry the weight of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), to whom reference has been made. On the other hand, is there anything in that? If that happens, the whole structure of the 1947 Act will go.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is getting very far from the Scheme which we are discussing. There is a parent Act of 1952 which authorises these grants in principle. The hon. and learned Member cannot criticise that Act without a Motion for its repeal. He must confine himself more strictly to the Scheme which is before us.

Mr. Paget: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, I wholly agree, and I shall confine myself strictly to the Scheme. I hope my remarks may be taken as an introductory form indicating the general framework—

Mr. Speaker: I formed that view of the hon. and learned Member's remarks, but I thought his exordium was somewhat prolonged.

Mr. Paget: It shall be prolonged no longer. To return to this device. As it was introduced last year I understood that it was not regarded as a permanent measure but as a temporary boost to obtain a particular increase hurriedly, a boost which would give an increase more quickly than the application of a price to the final product. We are told that some acres which were not ploughed before 1939 have now been ploughed. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) asked a very telling question; what does the ploughing of each of these acres cost? Does it cost considerably more than the acres, either ploughed or unploughed, were ever worth? Does not the cost of getting the increase considerably exceed the value of the land which has been added by ploughing? Does it exceed it by several times? That is the sort of test to show whether this kind of boost is worth while.
If this inducement is the operative factor to get people to plough land which they have not thought worth ploughing since 1939 and did not think worth ploughing last year, even with this bonus, why should they think it is worth ploughing next year? What is the point of continuing something which is applied as a boost? If we continue a boost, its effect is destroyed. What we require is to be able to give a quick and temporary inducement, and then people will take it because they will know it is their one chance.
If we carry these things on people will say, "Now they have put it on, they will not take it off next year or the year after." The idle farmer who has not ploughed his land since 1939 and who requires special inducement to make him do so and to see that he makes the best use of his land, will put it off until next year. Can the Minister give some indication of when we shall see the end of this boost and when we can get back to the 1947 principle of a contract price?

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: Perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply to the various points made. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) asked a number of questions. His first dealt with the amendment in paragraph 3 (1) which will enable my right hon. Friend to approve an acreage for a fallow. This will occur where a particular field may be dirty and may require the fallow in order to clean it, and where there is no other suitable way of killing the weeds growing on the field. The farmer might make his application next spring in order to start his summer fallow, and if he is fallowing it in the summer of 1954 with the intention of sowing in the autumn of 1954, he would run into the following year and would not qualify for subsidy. Unless there is some special dispensation of this kind, the farmer cannot be paid the £5 an acre. In practice we found this was a necessity, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise it.
The hon. Member asked why we did not apply this dispensation to Part II of the Scheme, and the answer is that provision to give my right hon. Friend sufficient latitude in Part II has been made, enabling him to pay a £10 grant at such a stage in the operation of clearing

and bringing the land into cultivation as he thinks fit. It was never so tightly drawn as Part I.
I was also asked the cost of the grant in 1952–53, but I cannot give precise figures. The year ends on 31st May, and quite a lot of the land on which application has been made for grant has not yet been finally approved and cleared. There is bound to be an element of estimate in my answer, and the best estimate I can give him is that in England and Wales and Northern Ireland about 730,000 acres will have been approved, entailing a cost of about £3·65 million. In other words, it is not far from the figure which he mentioned and is about the same as last year.
The hon. Member also asked what was the cost of an additional acre in subsidy because it seemed to him to be very high. I think that was part of his general argument about the effect and value of these subsidies as we move into a freer economy, when, instead of the system of guaranteed fixed prices paid by the Ministry of Food, we have a system of support prices or deficiency payments and a return to a free market.
I shall deal with his first question first—and it was also asked by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget): what is the cost of an additional acre in subsidy? That does not give a fair indication of the value of the ploughing grant. The cost of an additional acre would indeed look ridiculous if it were measured in terms of the total cost of the subsidy, but the subsidy is given as part of the general award to farmers at a price review when end prices for commodities are fixed. It is at the same time part of the general award and of the net income of the industry making up the figure of £320 million or whatever may be the approved figure for the year. It has been given in this way by these specific subsidies. The cost of the £3 million or £4 million in ploughing subsidy must be regarded as part of the net income of the farming industry as a whole.
That brings me straight into the general argument of how this is to work in a satisfactory way from the point of view of the taxpayer and consumer, as well as from the farmer's point of view, in the freer economy.

Mr. Champion: Has the hon. Gentleman any figures to tell us about the cost per acre for the increased acres? He has merely given a general statement.

Mr. Nugent: Obviously I am not able to give any figures because I have not the figures of the increase this year. What I am saying is that the figure would be no indication of value for money, because the value of this subsidy, as I hope I will convince the hon. Member and his hon. and learned Friend before I have finished, is far wider than the actual increase in the general tillage acreage.
The cost of the subsidy is not attributable only to cereals. In fact only about 10 per cent. of it is reflected in cereals. The greater part of it, in oats and barley and a variety of other crops, is of course fed to livestock and comes out finally in livestock realisation rather than in cereal realisation. It is essentially an award to the industry as a whole and is taken into account in deciding the proper level of net income for the industry in the year under review. It would be unwise to judge the value of it simply in terms of the net increase in acreage.
I recognise the importance of the question about how we justify the making of this award as we move into a freer economy. There are two points in the answer. The first is that a system of support prices has been common throughout the whole of the Scheme. For oats and barley the price fixed at the Review has been a support price. The farmer has been free to make the best price he can over that in the market. With barley he had the opportunities of the malting market. With oats he had the opportunities of the oatmeal market and he could make the price considerably higher. That type of farmer thereby has an advantage. One must recognise that.
But the total amount realised by the industry by virtue of sales in the malting market, the oatmeal market and so on is taken into account in the general calculation when assessing the net income and expenditure for the industry in the year. One cannot do it more precisely than that. We have not been able to do it in the past nor shall we be able to do it in the future. I must not stray too far into that field. It is right to say

that we shall be able to continue to make what is called this global calculation in future, as we have done in the past.
From the point of view of justifying the system of ploughing subsidies as part of the award, there is no reason why we should not continue it in future. I have no reason to think that thereby the consumer will get less value than he has done in the past. I hope that that reassures hon. Gentlemen opposite that this will not become an haphazard system of subsidies. We shall continue to be vitally interested in what is the net income of the industry. We must be, because without that we cannot be assured of getting the volume of produce that we want. Therefore we must continue to have regard in the Price Review to this sort of calculation.
In the same way, it is right to make the point that they have never been precise in the past. They cannot be accurate to more than about 2 per cent. or 3 per cent.—about £20 million or £30 million. In future the margin of error may be a bit bigger. The only satisfactory way to regard the calculations is as an indication of the broad trend of the income of the industry. There are many other factors in judging just what is the right award and how it should be broken down to specific prices for specific commodities. I hope hon. Members will realise that the continuation of the subsidies for another year will in no way prejudice the position.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton asked why we continue with this ploughing subsidy which, in his opinion, was intended to be a boost. The answer is that experience has taught us that it is necessary to continue it if we are to maintain the tillage acreage that we want. When my right hon. Friend introduced the parent Act he said that he wished to make these Schemes run for two years and not to have to renew them annually. He thought that they should have a measure of continuity though they should not be permanent.
I ask the House to approve this Scheme because I believe with confidence that it is necessary to continue this device if we are to maintain and to continue to increase the tillage acreage. This Scheme has a special value in the hon. and learned Member's part of the world, in the Midland counties, where there was a distinct


tendency to go back to grass at the end of the war and where they were not only going back to grass but were allowing the speed of rotation to decrease. Instead of a three-year rotation they were going to four, five or six-year rotations.
There is no doubt that in practice the subsidy makes a strong appeal to the small farmer, who has responded by speeding up his rotation and perhaps bringing under the plough land that has not been ploughed before. It gives him some cash at the beginning of the process which helps him to finance his operations. The Scheme also has a valuable effect on the farmer in the counties. When the district advisory officer or the district committee man who is making a survey can say to a farmer, "What about ploughing up that field? We can give you £5 an acre," that has a most valuable psychological effect encouraging the farmer to take the decision to go ahead.
I am confident that the subsidy fully justifies its continuance at least for another year. I do not suggest that it should be permanent. I simply say that it is fully justified now. It is maintaining and increasing tillage acreage. I firmly believe that it will continue to do so.

Resolved,
That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.

6.58 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I beg to move,
That the Draft Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
This is the third Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme, and is similar to the one which has just been approved. I do not think I need go into the details which have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. I should like to give the relevant Scottish figures.
We believe that the two previous Scottish Schemes have accomplished the Government's aim of reversing the dangerous downward trend in our tillage acreage which was clearly apparent in 1951. The actual fall between 1950 and 1951, was 39,000 acres. We have contributed,

through the ploughing grant, to arresting that decline and turning it into a net increase of 13,000 acres in 1952.
My hon. Friend was asked about the figures for this year. Unfortunately, we are unable to give final figures because the June returns are not yet analysed. As far as we can see, with about three weeks still to run under the last Scheme, we have applications for about 300,000 acres under Part I. Under Part II, again with several weeks to go before the closing date, we have applications for 10,500 acres. That is under the £10 grant.
Broadly speaking, this Scheme is the same as the second. There are three small alterations which I should explain. They are practically similar to those which have just been outlined by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. We are including the same condition about fallowing, although in Scotland fallow will not have the same application as it will have south of the border. Here and there we have heavy land where fallowing may come into the picture but we do not expect this condition to be of any great importance in Scotland.
The previous Scheme required the occupier of eligible land to seek the approval of an agricultural executive committee before the land was sown direct to grass. That is to say, direct re-seeding required the approval of an agricultural executive committee. We have extended this provision to include re-seeding with any other crop grown for grazing by livestock. In Scotland it will apply almost entirely to rape, and where rape is sown with a grass seed mixture prior approval will be required just as if it had been a case of direct re-seeding.
The last alteration, in Part II of this Scheme, is that provision has now been made for the payment of the grant where the farmer has completed at least one approved operation after the ploughing and where the remaining operations are likely to be spread over a considerable period. The reason is that under this part of the Scheme there is very great expense. It involves ploughing extremely difficult land, where tree roots and scrub and various things of that kind have to be got out of the way. We believe that paying the grant after one appropriate cultivation has taken place will encourage


people who are hanging back because of the long time that they have to wait for their money and in view of the high expense. We hope that these arrangements will induce people to take advantage of this grant where hitherto they have not seen their way to finance projects of this kind before receiving some payment.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I submit that the case for these ploughing grants grows progressively weaker. Last year the Government made a case that could not be strongly resisted. This year the Government are on weak ground. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has reminded us that in 1951 we suffered a great reduction in tillage acreage in Scotland of 39,000, but largely in consequence of this Scheme we turned that drop of 39,000 acres into a gain of 13,000 acres last year.
The hon. Gentleman will of course have in mind that in 1950 it was exceedingly difficult to convince the farmers of Scotland that the Government could not obtain feedingstuffs from countries overseas. Hon. Members who are now supporters of the Government, and some who are in the Government, went about the country saying that the miserable Socialist Government just would not spend the exchange on procuring much needed feedingstuffs from overseas. In 1951 world prices for feedingstuffs went up rapidly and farmers had brought home to them the fact that towards the end of 1951 and into 1952 the price was going up and up.
If world prices go up the growing of the grain at home becomes of course an ever more attractive proposition. Not only that, but the farmers had a party in Government who had said that the Labour Government had not really been trying to obtain feedingstuffs from overseas, and now that same party had to say that those feedingstuffs could not be obtained. The farmers, therefore, were in the position of knowing that under no party which was likely to be a future Government was there a possibility of increasing the purchases of feedingstuffs from overseas and that, therefore, if we were to increase production and increase the number of livestock we must grow more feedingstuffs ourselves. One would

have expected that the downward trend would have been held. We must not have this drop quoted as if it were an annual occurrence. This 39,000 acre drop was the biggest drop in post-war years.
We are bound to look at the cost of these extra acres that we are obtaining. The Joint Under-Secretary of State said that we had an additional 13,000 acres in 1952. We are also told in the report of the Department of Agriculture that applications were made for ploughing subsidy in respect of 288,000 acres. Even at £5 per acre, leaving aside the payment of £10 per acre under Part II of the Scheme, that represents £1,440,000 in respect of an additional 13,000 acres. So to get down to the figure for which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire. South-East (Mr. Champion), it really costs £111 per acre to get the additional acreage that we are obtaining.
The ploughing up of this land is either good or bad husbandry. I have spoken to many farmers about this scheme. When I have asked them about the ploughing up subsidy the immediate reaction of any responsible farmer has been a broad smile and the words, "It is just absurd." I spoke to one farmer a fortnight ago and asked him what he thought about it. He said, "Well, I ploughed up 50 acres of grass this year"—he farms in rather a big way. "My farming operations are carried on in a seven to eight years' rotation—three to four years of grass and four years of crop. The ploughing-up subsidy does not make a bit of difference to me." He is in the higher range of taxpayers as it is and this subsidy would not be any inducement to him, but he added. "I ploughed 50 acres and I will get £250 for them."
It is all very well to say that this money is really part of the global sum which we intend should go into agriculture. Those of us who have to address urban audiences on this matter from time to time could justify the payment of £250 to this farmer if we could convince them that if the farmer did not receive it in this way he would obtain it in the end price for the crop. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that even in this free economy into which we are moving, when farmers will be able to dispose of


all their grain at the best prices that they can obtain in the market, we shall nevertheless take into account in the Annual Review what they actually receive, and that will determine the support price for some commodities and the fixed price for others and the level of subsidy.
That is not an explanation that will go down very well with urban audiences. They will say, "Why should the farmer on good land who will obtain a good price for his produce, and who would carry this cultivation through as a normal routine job that he does on the farm, have the subsidy when if he did not do the job of ploughing up he would go out of business?" A member of an urban audience asks, "Why should this man get £5 an acre for doing a job which he will do in any case?" Indeed, the farmer to whom I referred just now said to me that in his view if he had not ploughed up his 50 acres of grassland he ought to have been punished rather than given this subsidy of £5 an acre for doing what he would have done in any case.
I think the higher subsidy of £10 in respect of the difficult land where the tearing up of tree roots etc. is involved is probably a very good subsidy. I am glad to learn from the Joint Under-Secretary of State that applications have been made this year in respect of 10,000 acres of such land in Scotland because I regard that as work of reclamation, the bringing into food production of acres that would otherwise be producing little or nothing. I want to encourage that, and I think we all do. Indeed, I would rather we spent a little more money on that.
I come to the fallowing of which we have been told. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said that it was desirable to permit certain acres, particular fields on particular farms, to lie fallow for a whole year after ploughing up to get rid of the heavy growth of weeds that had developed on that land. The farmer of that land has been guilty of very bad husbandry, otherwise his fields would not have got into that state. One wonders whether it would not be better if the Government were to exercise some of the other powers they have to see the land so treated and managed that it would not get into such a deplorable state that it has to be left fallow for a whole year—fallow for a whole year while the taxpayer has to help to

pay for the ploughing up of fields left idle.
We must, I think, pass this Scheme for Scotland. The House has just approved one for England for another year, and I think we shall have to approve this one for Scotland as well. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he thought a case had been made out for continuing the scheme for another year. I hope he will bear in mind the words he has uttered, and that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland will do likewise. The Scheme is to be continued for another year, but they had better consider the whole business very carefully before coming back in a year's time and asking for this kind of subsidy to be paid for yet another year.
It will not do. The Government have powers under the 1947 Act in England and under the 1948 Act in Scotland to get a high measure of efficient husbandry. They have Orders in both countries called the Maximum Area of Pasture Orders which give them and the executive committees power to say to a farmer, "You shall not have more than such an area of pasture on your farm." If those powers were being exercised, and if the farmers were not disposed to leave too big areas of pasture on their farms, there would be no need to give this payment of £5 an acre for the ploughing up of grassland.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that this instrument had been a great help in getting the small farmer on marginal land to plough up that extra acre or so. He said that an officer of the executive committee would call on a farmer and say, "You could plough up this additional acre. This additional small field will give you £5 an acre for doing so," I doubt very much indeed if it is from that source that the farmer has got his additional ploughed acreage. I think he has got his additional ploughed acreage from the best arable areas in this country. Let us do our utmost to encourage the small farmer, indeed the large one, too, on marginal land.
We can give him assistance by marginal land production schemes and so help bring into production land that would otherwise be doing little or nothing. We do not have to employ this extravagant, expensive instrument to


do it, this instrument that is really pouring far too much of the taxpayers' money into the pockets of the most successful and the wealthiest farmers, most of whom are complaining at the end of the day in any case because three-quarters of the money goes back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Income Tax and Surtax.
If that is so, it is all the more reason why the Government should not put us in the position of having to justify to urban audiences this continued payment of £5 per acre to a farmer for carrying out his normal operations on a farm. Let us have a high standard of efficiency, let us have a high standard of husbandry, let the Government and their agents, the executive committees, do their job in administering the Acts of 1947 and 1948 and administering the Maximum Area of Pasture Orders, and it will not be necessary to continue this very expensive and disturbing instrument for yet another year. We shall not oppose this Motion this year, but let this be the last year.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, and I should not have intervened at all had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who has himself been formerly an Under-Secretary of State especially charged with looking after the welfare of this most ancient industry in Britain and the most important in Scotland, as he will have to admit, did not speak more in unison with the more reasonable and in some ways excellent speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). I thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East showed himself to be very much more at grips with the situation really existing in agriculture today than did his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton.
The hon. Member for Hamilton made great play with the difficulty he would have—and I suppose that applies to all Socialist Members for Scotland—in justifying this ploughing grant and its continuance for another year to urban audiences in the Northern Kingdom. I know, and I am delighted to know, that

it is the case that there is far greater interest being taken in the urban areas in agriculture today than has ever been the case before. That is why I do not want to see that interest in any way diminished or injured by speeches such as that the hon. Gentleman has just delivered to this House.
I am delighted to think that there is such an interest being taken in even one detail connected with agriculture, namely, this ploughing grant. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends if they set out—and I did not know they were thinking of doing so, but if they do—to justify this to urban audiences, will not have as formidable a task in so justifying it as the hon. Gentleman has just told the House they will.
The hon. Member for Hamilton also made a great point, or endeavoured to do so, about a conversation he had a fortnight ago with a large farmer in Scotland about this ploughing grant. He said that this farmer seemed to indicate that for his part it was a waste of money, and that the land would have been ploughed up just the same if this grant had not been forthcoming. I wonder if that is the case? That is an individual opinion. We all know individuals in any industry or business with which they are connected who are out to pour cold water upon schemes which most of their brethren in the same industry would gladly welcome.
I say, without offence, that I could mention one or two individual farmers in Scotland who take the same kind of line that the hon. Gentleman has just told the House his farmer friend has taken, but I feel sure that if we could take a plebiscite of the farmers, large and small, and particularly the small farmers, in Scotland—and I think that this probably applies to England and Wales as well—we should find a very large majority of them in favour of continuing this ploughing grant for one more year.

Mr. T. Fraser: indicated assent.

Mr. Mackie: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman approves of what I have said.
I have a constituency and personal interest in farming generally. I am only too delighted to confess that. I for one am delighted that this grant is going on for another 12 months and if at the end of that time this Government are


still in power, enjoying even greater majorities in the House, and come forward with an another ploughing grant which will be the subject, no doubt, of keen debate and review by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I shall be delighted.
As I say, I am delighted that this matter will come up again in 12 months' time, if this Government see fit to introduce such a proposal again. But let the hon. Gentleman realise—I beg him to keep it in mind: it is very important, when he is pouring cold water on this Scheme, or endeavouring to do so—that no matter what was said today by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)—and his name has been mentioned several times in the last hour in this Chamber—the farmers' costs of production have been rising. It is no use saying that they have not—the hon. Gentleman well knows it—and this grant will be an incentive to them for the ensuing 12 months.

Mr. Fraser: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if that is not so I shall be very disappointed.
The Joint Under-Secretary says that another 13,000 acres have been reclaimed as a result of the Scheme which operated over the last 12 months. With great respect to him, I think that it would be a more graphic way of putting it to say that we have got back 39,000 acres and we have added another 13,000 acres, making 52,000 acres.

Mr. Fraser: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the Joint Under-Secretary does not deny it. The hon. Gentleman has not been associated as actively as the Minister with the Scottish Office for nearly two years, and he is not in a position to trifle with the statement which my hon. Friend made, and which I have endeavoured modestly to elaborate in this speech.
As I say I did not intend to speak, and I do not think that I should have done so but for the challenging speech which the former Under-Secretary of State for Scotland delivered. I am delighted to think that at the end of his speech he associated himself with what my hon. Friend had said, by saying that

he would offer no opposition to this Scheme. I am glad that he supports it, and I can say that we are delighted to have it for another 12 months. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be proved entirely wrong, that the taxpayers of Scotland will not suffer and that the consumers will not suffer. I hope that the agricultural community—the farmers—whose duty it is to plough up and till the land will benefit largely from the result of these ploughing grants, if they are continued for another year.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have no doubt that the Government will be reassured to hear that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) and his farming friends do not intend to reject the subsidies offered to them under this Scheme.
Part III, paragraph 10 of the Scheme makes special provision for small landholders and crofters. I am very glad that in these schemes such special provisions are usually incorporated. I think it is generally agreed that this is the type of farmer who genuinely does need assistance and who often finds difficulty in getting the full benefit from the various agricultural subsidies owing to the nature and size of his holding. I should like to ask one or two questions about that paragraph. If the Joint Under-Secretary cannot reply to these points now perhaps he will do so at some other time.
Paragraph 10 as drafted applies only to landholders who are holders under certain Acts. There are certain parts of the crofting counties where the crofters have bought their crofts and are owner-occupiers. On the face of it they would not come under this Scheme. I do not know if there are many cases which have arisen of people being excluded from these benefits because they are owner-occupiers. The person who has bought his croft is in the same position as the true crofter, and I have no doubt that the Government intend to give him the benefit which the true crofter would get under this Scheme.
The Scheme refers to landholders of "neighbouring" landholdings. They have to make up one acre among their holdings to be able to apply for the grants. Has there been any difficulty in finding out what this word "neighbouring"


means. It looks as if it was intended to refer only to landholders who have an interest in a common grazing. Can the Joint Under-Secretary tell us what is meant by "neighbouring" in connection with this Scheme. Is it all the landholders who have rights of common grazing together. If so, some of their holdings may be a considerable distance apart. I take it that it is not intended that they should be able to apply for this subsidy only in respect of land which has been enclosed for the common grazings after an apportionment by the Land Court. Are they entitled to apply for subsidy for any land whether it originally came from a common grazing or not? I should like to know if there has been any difficulty, and, if so, I hope that the Government are being as lenient as possible and are interpreting this word "neighbouring" as widely as possible.
The Scheme also states that,
… application in respect of the total area ploughed up is made on behalf of the individual landholders concerned by a Common Grazings Committee or Grazings Constable … or by a representative authorised by the landholders to act on their behalf and approved by the Secretary of State.
No doubt this is not such a high-sounding phrase as it appears to be in the Scheme. I urge on the Government that these are small people, who possibly are not very well read and conversant with these Schemes, and I hope that the Government will not put too many difficulties in the way of their getting their representative properly accredited.
Again, I should like to know whether there has been any difficulty in bringing crofters within the orbit of this type of scheme and on this particular point of getting their representative approved. My general point is that the Government should do all that they can to assist in allowing crofters and smallholders to take advantage of this sort of scheme, and to make the conditions for them as easy as possible.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: Perhaps, with permission, I might reply briefly to one or two of the points which have been made.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) about neighbouring

holders, we are making the provision as wide as possible and are in no way drawing the line very tightly. My information with regard to the crofting position is that the provision does not apply to owner-occupiers, but perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to look into it and verify that, and if he will send me particulars of any cases that he has I shall be grateful. There is no difficulty about the representative who is appointed. The provision is merely to make sure that proper control is exercised from St. Andrew's House and that a responsible person is chosen.
I wish also to deal with a few of the points raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), to which he is entitled to a reply. He said that, to a great extent, the increased acreage of land came from the best arable areas. That is his opinion. It is not our opinion. The reason is that, as a rule, the better arable farms work on short rotations. Therefore, the grants that we have been giving for a four-year ley or over have in the main gone to medium and poorer farms.

Mr. T. Fraser: Has the grass to be a four-year ley or over? According to paragraph 5 (b) of Part I of the Scheme, land which would qualify for subsidy is land which has been continually under grass since 1st June, 1950, and is ploughed after 1st June, 1953. It has to be sown down to grass only three years. That means only two years of usable grass.

Mr. Snadden: It is really a three-year ley, but many people would regard it as a four-year ley, including the year of sowing down.
The hon. Member also referred to fallow. Certain types of land, even quite good grass land, contain a grass called twitch grass, and in Scotland we have a particularly nasty one called knot grass, which is often found on good farming land and is not always the result of bad farming. In order to kill that grass, one has to cultivate the land, very often for a considerable time, and with the help of the rays of the sun, to get rid of it. That is one of the reasons why we feel that it is useful to include fallow.
The hon. Gentleman criticised me for giving the figure of 39,000 acres. If I had not given it I should still have been criticised. I gave it to show the fall in the


tillage acreage and also to show that we have made a net increase of 13,000 acres above that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) said, that means 52,000 acres. The hon. Gentleman opposite talked about the expense of the scheme. He will agree that we had to face the hard fact that our tillage acreage was falling steeply, and we simply had to put forward some incentive to stop the fall. We cannot tell what the fall might have been in the next year had the ploughing grant not been introduced, but it might have been much more than 39,000 acres.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the point that many farmers would be doing the job in any case, and said that we were paying money to people who should have been doing the job in the ordinary course of farming. That is the case, and we have to admit it, but, again, we had to take a hard fact into account. We had a falling tillage acreage and we had to stop that trend in order to maintain and increase our head of livestock. There was no way round that. I admit that in many cases farmers would be paid for grass land which in the normal course they would have been ploughing anyhow.
The hon. Member expressed a fear about the ploughing grant generally. I would remind him that we have to bring our Schemes before Parliament every year. It might happen that price levels would move in a free economy, or circumstances change to such an extent that a further grant would be inappropriate. As any scheme would still have to be brought to Parliament for approval, however, I do not think there is any reason to be afraid about the future. Parliament has the duty of approving a Scheme. I hope that, with that explanation, the House will give us the Scheme.

Resolved,
That the Draft Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Scheme, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

7.35 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People Regulations, 1953, dated 24th April, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we also consider the Regulations relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are in similar terms, except that in the case of Scotland the order of the paragraphs is rather different, and in the case of Northern Ireland local government elections are not dealt with because those are matters for the Government of Northern Ireland and not for this Government.
The Representation of the People Act, 1948, made certain provisions for absent voters at Parliamentary and local government elections. There are three classes of such voters, those who vote by post, those who vote by proxy and those whose proxies themselves vote by post; and a person wishing to use these provisions must make application to do so. In certain cases he may apply to be registered in relation to a particular election. He does that if he is a candidate or the wife of a candidate, or is likely otherwise to be engaged—

Mr. Ede: "He" cannot be the wife of a candidate.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If he is a candidate or she is the wife of a candidate. He may apply to be registered for an indefinite period if, for example, he is a person suffering from some physical incapacity or by the nature of his occupation he is likely to be away. Once registered, a person can apply to cancel a previous application in order to vote in the ordinary way.
Under the first Regulations made, the Representation of the People Regulations, 1949, no definite date was fixed as the last day for applications. The Regulations gave discretion to electoral registration officers to disregard late applications if they were received, in the case of those registered for a particular


election, on or after the last day for nominations, and in the case of those registered indefinitely, if they were received on or after the date of the writ.
Accordingly, under those Regulations, in the 1950 General Election the last date for applications varied from constituency to constituency according to the discretion of the electoral registration officer, and that led to a good deal of confusion and discontent. A second set of Regulations was made. They were introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in 1950, and they fixed the last date for making application as the last day for nominations. In others words, in the case of a General Election the last day for making application was nine days before polling day, and in the case of a bye-election it was seven to nine days before polling day. The date was chosen after consultation with the chief party agents and representative registration and returning officers. It was chosen because it was taken to be the latest date that was practicable, and I think it was generally agreed at the time that it was tentatively chosen and would be subject to review in the light of what might occur at a subsequent general election.
The 1951 General Election showed that the date chosen in 1950 was too late having regard particularly to the very great number of applications to vote by post. In England and Wales the number of applications increased by more than two-thirds as between 1950 and 1951. The House may be interested if I give very briefly some figures. In England in 1950 there were 410,000 valid applications to vote by post. In 1951 that number increased to 688,000. In Wales the increase was from 24,000 to 39,000, in Northern Ireland from 24,000 to 25,000, and in Scotland from 49,000 to 79,000
A large proportion of the applications came in the last two or three days in which they could be made. I will give figures for the city of Birmingham in the 1951 Election to show what I mean. The total number of valid applications was, in round figures, 9,500. Of those some 2,000 were received before the Election began. Three thousand five hundred had been received by 12th October, which was the last day but two on which applications

could be made. No less than 4,000 applications came in the last two days.
It was clearly impossible, in those circumstances, to examine, check and complete the lists in time. It led to delay sometimes in getting the postal ballot papers issued, and, as a result a large number of voting papers were returned too late. In fact, the increase in late voting papers was no less than 136 per cent. It rose from 22,000 to 52,000. It was clear from that that the closing date for applications must be earlier.
Consultations took place with the chief agents and others concerned and all have agreed on the terms of these Regulations, under which the last date for applications will be a fortnight before polling day. The House will see that in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of the Regulations for England and Wales there is reference to the different classes I have mentioned, and the last day is the twelfth day before polling day. But under the Regulations Sundays are excluded so that two days must be added, which makes it a fortnight before the ballot. I venture to suggest to the House that that date is reasonable. It gives a little more time for the necessary preparations, and at the same time it leaves people up to the latest practical date in which to put in their applications. I do not think that it will mean there will be more applications out of date. It seems fairly clear that the reason for the last minute rush is that people leave it to the last minute in which to rush. The fact that we are giving them two days less will in fact move that last minute rush back by that time.
May I say a word about the supply of the lists of absent voters to candidates. Following a request to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields when he was Home Secretary, the registration officers have, in fact, supplied lists of absent voters to candidates on request. It has not been compulsory for them to do so, because it was thought that there would be difficulties of timing. It is fairly clear that with this additional time there will be no such difficulties, and henceforth under these Regulations one free copy of the lists of absent voters must be supplied to each candidate or his or her agent upon request. That must be as soon as practicable, and in any event before the date of the issue of the ballot


papers. This is covered by Regulations 2 to 5 in the Regulations for England and Wales, and there are corresponding Regulations in the other two.
As far as local government elections are concerned there is no alteration of the previous arrangements. In England and Wales applications have hitherto had to be made at least 14 days before the date of the poll. To that has to be added two days for the exclusion of Sundays, which means 16 days in all, and that position will remain. In the case of local government elections, too, a free copy of the lists of absent voters will have to be supplied to the candidate or his or her agent on request.
May I say a final word about Regulation 6 for England and Wales, to which these are corresponding Regulations for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Regulation 61 of the 1950 Regulations relates to a notification by a central national registration officer to an electoral registration officer that a man has left the Services and has therefore ceased to be a Service voter. The office of central national registration officer was abolished last year by the ending of national registration. The Registrar-General has the necessary information, and the effect of Regulation 6 is to substitute the Registrar-General for the officer who has now been abolished.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am sure the House is obliged to the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department for so clearly explaining these Regulations to us. He has indicated that the alterations that they make in the practice will be in vogue in the next fortnight if we approve these Regulations and they come into effect. I think that they represent an improvement. This was a novel procedure in our elections in peace-time, and it was necessary to get the appropriate experience that would enable us to frame the Regulations to secure that the maximum number of people should be able to benefit from them and, at the same time, that the registration officers and the candidates' election agents should be able to conduct an election with efficiency.
Undoubtedly on the first occasion, when it was left to the discretion of the returning officer, a very considerable

amount of discontent was caused when in an adjoining constituency it was found that a very different practice was prevailing. We attempted to avoid that in the second set of Regulations, and I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that we probably considered the convenience of the voter—quite rightly—rather than that of the officials connected with the election, with the result that on occasions there were undoubtedly difficulties between the returning officer and the candidate's agent when the returning officer was flooded out in the last 48 hours by this spate of requests for inclusion on the list.
I am not as sanguine as the hon. Gentleman that there will be no reduction in the number of persons claiming because we now fix the day two days earlier. My experience is that on the day after the last day, one has an even bigger number of persons coming into the Committee room to inquire what can be done than on the day or two before the last day. Undoubtedly, as the election proceeds, people begin to find out that there is something on and that unless they are very careful they may be debarred from participating in the election.
I hope, therefore, that when statements are made, as they are, from the Home Office to the Press of the country as to the various dates that govern the election, care will be taken to see that it is prominently stated in the first notice that is issued that a certain date—I am now dealing with Parliamentary elections—and not 12 days before the election plus two extra days because two Sundays intervene, will be specified, and that in the subsequent statements that are made up to the day on which the facilities given to the voters under these Regulations expire, that date will be repeated.
I emphasise that the date should be named and not its relationship with polling day, because there might be this complication of the two Sundays. After all, some people are not prepared to regard Sundays as days that do not count; some people think they are only days that do count. I recollect when I was a teacher taking some boys out, after we had won a very exciting cricket match, to give them a little extra treat. As we were sitting down to tea, one boy, with his mouth well stuffed with bun, said," Mr. Ede, this seems to me


like Sunday." The boy sitting next to him said, "It does not seem like Sunday—I am enjoying myself." It is difficult to get people sometimes to realise that Sunday does not count for these purposes. Therefore, if the date is stated there should be no mistake, and a person who takes the trouble to read the notice, or any note of it that appears in the Press, ought to know which is the day on which his right to apply for inclusion in the list will expire.
It is also a good thing that it should now be made compulsory on the registration officer to supply the candidate with the list. After all, an agent can be a "she" as well as a "he." My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has a most efficient agent who is a lady. Therefore, the difficulty with regard to getting in both the pronouns when one is not relying on the Interpretation Act, arises even there. As I say, it is a good thing that the registration officer should be placed under compulsion to supply the list. There, again, it is very annoying, particularly in a county constituency, if it is found that in one area a list is available and in another it is not. It leads to comparisons being drawn between public officers, which ought to be avoided if at all possible.
These Regulations represent the fruit of experience. I have no doubt that under them we shall gain further experience. It may be that in the course of a year or two the Home Secretary may find it advisable even to submit further Regulations dealing with this point. I think, however, that these Regulations embody the result of the experiences we have had during the two general elections when this form of voting has been available. I commend the Regulations to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I suggest that as far as England and Wales are concerned and, in so far as I am entitled now to speak for Northern Ireland, as far as Northern Ireland also is concerned, we should accept them. But heaven forbid that I should say anything about Scotland.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I only want to ask one question in connection with Regulations 3 and 6 concerning the free issue of one copy of the lists. I am sure that election

agents and candidates will welcome this improvement in the Regulations. Many candidates and agents have in the past found difficulty in securing the list of names of people who were on the postal register.
The Regulations say that one copy of the list shall be supplied free. We ought not to be niggardly. One copy seems to me to be a rather small allocation, especially for county constituencies. Although the Regulations say in effect that one copy is to be issued free, am I to understand from what the Minister said that agents may secure other copies on payment?

7.59 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: This is one of those subjects in which every Member of the House is intensely interested. It is a matter of the mechanics of elections. It is one of the improvements in the organisation and mechanical operation and management of election campaigns in Parliamentary elections that have been made within recent years.
When, a few years ago, the extension to the postal vote was new, it was the endeavour of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to extend its use as far as possible. Many of us who were interested in this procedure of arranging elections wondered if my right hon. Friend had gone too far in making sure that every new applicant for a postal vote had every facility. But like him we were determined that there should never be any charge levelled against the Government, or Parliament, or the registration or returning officers, that they were denying electors any part of their rights. It was putting a heavy strain on the registration officers to ask that within a few days they should prepare this list of postal voters, and I welcome the alteration, which I think inevitable and necessary.
We are inclined to look with suspicion upon any undue extension of time for the registration of postal votes. But the experience of registration officers has proved it to be necessary. I think that the proposed time is reasonable and gives registration officers a little extra period to prepare and check the lists.
I am glad of the opportunity to pay a tribute to a body of public servants who infrequently receive compliments for their work. Returning officers and town


clerks or county clerks, sheriffs, and sheriffs substitute are frequently complimented. But these humble members of town clerks' departments and officials of assessors' departments in Scotland seldom have an opportunity of hearing such praise. I have had experience over a quarter of a century of dealing with them, both in England and Scotland, and I have never had reason to complain. I am sure that the new Regulations will be a good thing. We all welcome the change and the result will be a more adequate and accurate register of postal voters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has asked that the Home Office and the Secretary of State should consider the issue of more than one copy of the list. This should be easily accomplished. There will not be time to print the lists and they will have to be duplicated. I suggest that a number of lists be sent out as free issues of registers to candidates for their agents. That will enable the agents to distribute the postal lists to sub-agents and ward workers.
I am glad that this part of the Regulations has been included because it will bring into line the issue of the parts of the register to the agents of all political parties. This is a highly technical and perhaps to some people a dull matter. But it is an important part of our machine for the running of elections in this country. I believe that we have the most perfect method of conducting elections which exists in the world, and because what we are considering is a little extra perfection, I welcome it.

8.9 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: I endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor). The work of registration officers in Northern Ireland has been heavy because of the unusually large size of the constituencies. In the county constituencies particularly there have been a great number of postal votes. The alteration which will give registration officers more time to prepare the lists will be most acceptable in Northern Ireland.
We welcome these Regulations, and I assume that as a matter of form my hon. Friend will assure the House that these Regulations have the approval of the Government of Northern Ireland.

8.10 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): I am sure that we should all like to join in the tribute that has been paid to registration officers. As individuals and as Members of Parliament, we have noted their efficiency and have admired their good sense. It is a tribute we pay from the House as a whole at this time.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) suggested, very wisely I thought, that any notice going out should specify a date quite clearly. We agree to that and will do what is necessary. I should like to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman what the date of the next Election will be, but I cannot do that just yet.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) raised the question of whether there should be more than one copy of the absent voters list. That seems a very reasonable suggestion. The Secretary of State for Scotland and, I am sure, the Home Secretary will consider that suggestion very sympathetically. It may not be possible to do exactly what was suggested by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) in the case of local government elections because there might be great numbers of candidates, but we will give the matter very careful and very sympathetic consideration.

Resolved,
That the Representation of the People Regulations, 1953, dated 24th April, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1953, dated 24th April, 1953 [copy presented 30th April] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth].

Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, 1953, dated 8th May, 1953, [copy presented 12th May] approved.—[Mr. Henderson Stewart.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes past Eight o'Clock.